Signal Strength & Security of Tenure: EE v Clock Tower Investments

Does a telecoms operator need to physically occupy the demised premises for the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to apply? According to the Upper Tribunal in EE v Clock Tower Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 163 (LC), the answer may be far more complicated than expected.In this episode, Richard and Lizzie unpack the surprising decision that a telecommunications lease could still benefit from the protection of the 1954 Act even where the operator did not physically occupy the demised ground itself, instead using adjacent roof space through installation and access rights.The case raises important questions around what “occupation for business purposes” really means. Richard discusses:•Why the Upper Tribunal decided the 1954 Act applied •The significance of business occupation under the Act •The difference between physical possession and operational control •The wider implications for landlords, operators and property lawyers.Relevant cases:Land Reclamation Co Ltd v Basildon District Council [1979]Pointon York Group Plc v Ann Doreen Poulton (2006)Re No 1 Albemarle Street [1959]Moody v Steggles (1879) Re Ellenborough Park [1955]Re Salvin’s Indenture [1938] Stenner v Teignbridge DC [2025]AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v On Tower (UK) Limited [2025]Get in touch! Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email [email protected] for information and booking.  This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content. Get in touch!