Code of Interaction with the LTA 1954: Subsisting Agreements Under the Old Code: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Ashloch Ltd The Electronic Communication Code (code) is defined in Communication Code 3A of the Communications Act 2003. It is a set of rights designed to facilitate the installation and maintenance of electronic communications networks. There has been some history between the parties who had previously been involved in litigation. The university therefore argued that if code rights were imposed, this would be greatly affected: it would no longer have control over its ability to exercise the pause and there is a risk that disputes would be necessary to get the operator out. It argued that such prejudice could not be quantified by money, particularly by the risk to its reputation and relationship with the developer, as well as by the 5,000 students who used the site. The continuing dispute between Cornerstone and the University of London has highlighted the fact that the rights to the code expressly mentioned in the code may also be code rights. These include the right of operators to make multi-skilled visits to a site to assess its ability to accommodate telecommunications equipment. Landowners should be advised by experts on whether a right proposed by an operator can be considered an incidental right, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation. The UT found that the renewal of rights by a local operator (at least primarily) is governed by Part 5 of the code. He also noted that the effects of the transitional provisions prevented an economic operator from availing itself of the Part 5 procedure to renew an agreement still pending which enjoys the protection of the 1954 Act. Paragraph 20 refers to a «relevant person.» Under Article 9 of the Code, the code rights agreement (whether voluntary or judicial) is between the occupier of the land concerned and the operator. Article 105 of the code stipulates that references to a country occupier in this code are for the time being addressed to the occupiers of the country.
The occupier may be the free holder, a tenant, a licensee or any other person entering the site, but in all circumstances, it is the occupier who recognizes the rights that an application for interim right must be parasitic under section 26 of the code for an application under paragraph 20. The detailed text of paragraphs 26 (intermediate law) and 27 (temporary rights) was reviewed and compared. Under paragraph 26, the operator merely states that «the operator is issuing a notification in accordance with paragraph 20, paragraph 2, and specifies that an agreement is requested on an interim basis.» In paragraph 27, there is a notification «referred to in paragraph 20, paragraph 2.» The CoA distinguishes between the two and held that a notice for sub-position 26 purposes should contain only the same information as is necessary to open a notice in accordance with paragraph 20, and not that an effective notification should be provided in accordance with paragraph 20. The procedure is complex and it is recommended to obtain professional advice before reaching an agreement and again if termination and removal is desired. Like the security provisions of business membership under the Landlords and Tenants Act  («LATA»), the code allowed operators to keep their equipment on the land at the end of a contract rental period. If an owner wanted to remove an operator under the existing code, he had to go through a complex termination procedure – and even then, his request for a move could be refused if the operator could, on request from the court, successfully argue for the right to keep his equipment on site.