The Pippingford Case: Rent Negotiation Insights

Updated September 2026. This article was reviewed and corrected in September 2026. We added the correct citation and date, corrected the description of how the rent was set under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the rent the court decided, and noted the rent changes in force since April 2026.

The Pippingford Case: Key Takeaways

• Case Name: EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Richard Morriss and others
• Key Issues:
• Court Decision:
• Key Findings:
• Implications for Landlords:
• Summary:

Case Name: EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Richard Morriss and others

Citation: EE Ltd & Anor v Morriss & Ors [2022] EW Misc 1 (CC), Mayor’s and City of London County Court (Martin Rodger QC, sitting as a Judge of the County Court)

Date: 7 January 2022

Key Issues:

This case concerns a telecommunications lease renewal on the Pippingford Park Estate, East Sussex. The estate is primarily rural land, with some areas used for military training. EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK sought to renew their lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The rent and other terms of the new lease were to be decided under sections 34 and 35 of the 1954 Act, although the new lease would itself be subject to the Electronic Communications Code (ECC).

At the heart of the case was the rent dispute. The telecoms operators’ expert put the rent at £950 per annum (the operators’ original application had proposed £300), while the landowners’ expert argued for £12,000 per annum, including an addition for the potential to share the site with other operators.

Court Decision:

The County Court held that the rent under section 34 of the 1954 Act is a market rent, and that evidence of rents agreed in the market was the best evidence. It found the landowners’ figure of £12,000 very much higher than the market evidence supported. It also took into account the capital payments, often described as incentive or early completion payments, that operators make on new lettings, rejecting the argument that transactions could only be analysed in the way the operators had documented them.

The court determined a rent of £3,500 a year. This was made up of £3,000, which reflected the market evidence and the greater than average management time, inconvenience and potential for interference with other more profitable activities on the Estate, plus £500 a year for the contribution to professional fees a site provider would normally receive.

Key Findings:

• Rent Valuation: The court ruled that market evidence, rather than the structured approach typically used under the ECC, should be applied in determining the rent. The court noted that, unlike a determination under paragraph 24 of the Code, a rent under section 34 is not assessed on the “no-network” assumption.

• **Fair **Rent Determination: The court found the landowners’ figure much higher than the market evidence supported, but set a rent of £3,500 a year, well above the operators’ figure, taking account of capital payments commonly made on new lettings and the particular burdens of this site.

• Site Sharing: The court did not accept an addition to the rent for the potential to share the site with other operators, as the market evidence did not show such payments being made. It valued a letting of a bare site, assuming the existing apparatus had been removed, but did not apply the “no-network” assumption.

Implications for Landlords:

The Pippingford case illustrates that, on a 1954 Act renewal, market evidence (including capital and incentive payments) and the particular burdens a site places on the landowner could lead to a rent well above the operator’s offer. It is a County Court decision, and since 7 April 2026 many renewals of pre-2017 mast leases are subject to the new “no-network” rent rules in section 34A of the 1954 Act. Landowners should still gather robust market evidence when negotiating rents with telecoms operators.

Summary:

Landlords can take away from the Pippingford case that good market evidence, and evidence of how a mast affects the rest of their land, can have a significant impact on rent negotiations. Although the court did not side fully with the landowners’ suggested rent, the rent it set was well above the operators’ figure.

For a tailored assessment of your site’s potential and help with rent negotiations, contact The Phone Mast Advice Company Ltd for expert advice and a free site review.

Related Services

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

• EE Phone Mast Leases

• Phone Mast Rent Reviews

• Get a Free Rent Estimate

• Phone Mast Lease Renewals

• Get a Free Lease Check

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