CTIL Appeal Loss: Key Lessons for Phone Mast Landlords

Updated September 2026. This article was reviewed and corrected in September 2026. We corrected our summary of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions, including the joined On Tower appeal, and clarified that tribunals can still impose agreements on landowners where the Code’s tests are met.

The case of Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd (CTIL) v. Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd has been a significant turning point in the relationship between telecommunications operators and landowners, particularly concerning the interpretation of the Electronic Communications Code (the “Code”).

CTIL Appeal Loss: Key Points for Landlords

• Background
• Court of Appeal (October 2019)
• Supreme Court Appeal (February – June 2022)
• A Major Defeat for CTIL
• A Victory for Landlords
• Conclusion

Background

In 2004, Vodafone Ltd entered into a 10-year lease with Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd for a site to install and operate a telecommunications mast. Upon the lease’s expiration in 2014, Vodafone continued its occupation of the site.

In 2018, CTIL – a joint venture between Vodafone and Telefónica UK Ltd (O2) – sought to acquire Code rights over the same site, arguing that they should be able to install and maintain equipment under the new Electronic Communications Code, which had come into force in December 2017.

However, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) ruled in 2019 that it lacked jurisdiction to grant CTIL’s request because Vodafone, not Compton Beauchamp, was the actual occupier of the land. The Tribunal confirmed that only the current occupier could grant new Code rights.

Court of Appeal (October 2019)

CTIL appealed the Upper Tribunal’s decision, arguing that a landowner should still be able to grant Code rights to an operator, even if another operator is already in occupation.

However, in October 2019, the Court of Appeal upheld the original decision. Its reasoning went further, holding that tribunals had no jurisdiction to consider an application for new Code rights from an operator because that operator was already in occupation of the site. The Supreme Court later held that this part of its reasoning was wrong.

Supreme Court Appeal (February – June 2022)

Not willing to accept defeat, CTIL took the case to the Supreme Court, where it was heard between February 1–3, 2022. The judgment was handed down on June 22, 2022.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed CTIL’s appeal, confirming that Vodafone was indeed the occupier of the site and that Compton Beauchamp, as the landowner, could not grant Code rights to CTIL. In the joined appeal brought by On Tower (formerly Arqiva), however, the operator’s appeal was allowed, and the Court held that an operator already in occupation of a site can apply to the tribunal for new Code rights (paragraphs 171 and 172 of the judgment).

A Major Defeat for CTIL

This series of legal defeats was a major setback for CTIL, as its business model relied on securing new agreements under its own name, rather than through its parent companies, Vodafone and O2. The ruling forced CTIL to reconsider its approach and adapt to the fact that landowners and existing occupiers had stronger legal standing than it had anticipated.

One workaround, which CTIL used at another site in 2019 after the Court of Appeal’s decision, was to take an assignment of Vodafone’s existing tenancy, thereby becoming the occupier of the land itself. Alternatively, CTIL could arrange new agreements through Vodafone or O2 directly undermining CTIL’s purpose as a separate infrastructure company.

A Victory for Landlords

This decision was a significant win for the landowner in this case. The Supreme Court made it clear that a Code notice must be served on the right person, the occupier of the land, and that an operator whose existing lease is protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 must renew it under that Act rather than bypass it by applying for new Code rights. However, the judgment does not stop operators obtaining rights without a landowner’s consent: tribunals can still impose an agreement under Paragraph 20 of the Code where the test in Paragraph 21 is met.

Conclusion

The CTIL v. Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd case remains one of the most important telecoms rulings under the 2017 Electronic Communications Code. While it posed challenges for CTIL, it confirmed that new Code rights must be sought from the occupier of the land, and also that an operator in occupation can apply for new Code rights.

For landlords dealing with mast agreements, this case sets an important legal precedent on who an operator must deal with, although tribunals can still impose agreements where the Code’s tests are met. For a detailed overview of the Supreme Court’s judgment, you can refer to the official case summary: UK Supreme Court

Related Services

If you need expert advice on the topics discussed in this article, our specialist surveyors can help:

• Vodafone Phone Mast Leases

• O2 Phone Mast Leases

• CTIL Phone Mast Leases

• Cornerstone Phone Mast Leases

• Phone Mast Lease Renewals

Call us on 01691 791543 or contact us online for a free consultation.