Blog

Under the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the Code), telecoms operators can ask a property tribunal to impose a so-called ‘Code agreement’ on landowners in the event they cannot agree on such an agreement between themselves. However, where landowners can demonstrate their intent to redevelop all or part of the land to which the desired Code rights would relate, or any neighbouring land, and that they could not reasonably do so if a Code agreement was imposed, the tribunal is prohibited from imposing such an agreement on the parties. This ‘redevelopment defence’ is provided for under Paragraph 21(5) of the Code.

In a recent case ruled on by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited (Icon) sought to resist the imposition of a Code agreement on it in respect of freehold land it owns at Queens Oak Farm in Northamptonshire. On Tower UK Limited (On Tower) has maintained a telecoms mast on a site on that land since around 1997. On Tower’s mast is used by the UK’s biggest mobile network operators (MNOs) – EE, Three, Vodafone, and Virgin Media O2 – for hosting electronic communications apparatus.

On Tower previously held a formal lease to operate from the Icon-owned site, but that lease agreement expired in 2016. Since then, On Tower has been operating from the site under a so-called tenancy at will, which is a form of tenancy that is not subject to a formal lease or end date. Under this arrangement, On Tower pays Icon an annual rent and a proportion of the income it receives from the mobile network operators for use of its mast.

On Tower is seeking a Code agreement to enhance its rights to operate on the site. Compared to the preceding legislative regimes, the 2017 Code is weighted more heavily in favour of telecoms operators than landowners in respect of the rights a Code agreement confers on operators to install, inspect and maintain equipment such as masts, cables and other communications apparatus on others’ land.

On Tower previously won a protracted legal battle that ended up in the UK Supreme Court over its rights to seek a Code agreement with AP Wireless, a company in the same group as Icon, in respect of the Queens Oak Farm site. However, when the case was remitted to FTT, Icon, which was by then the owner of the Queens Oak Farm site, claimed it had a redevelopment defence to defeat the imposition of the Code agreement sought.

As well as being a landowner, Icon is also a telecoms company, part of the AP Wireless group. It has designs on installing its own mast on the site On Tower occupies at Queens Oak Farm and of encouraging the MNOs that use On Tower’s mast currently to switch to its mast. In the latest proceedings in this long-running dispute, the FTT had to decide whether Icon had a legitimate redevelopment defence it could rely on.

The central question the Tribunal had to determine was whether Icon could demonstrate a “firm and settled intention” to redevelop the site, such that it could not reasonably do so if On Tower remained in occupation of the site.

The Tribunal applied a two-stage test to help it answer this question, involving assessment of subjective and objective factors. In respect of the subjective part of the test, the Tribunal considered whether Icon did genuinely intend to redevelop. With the objective part of the test, it considered whether there was a reasonable prospect of Icon being able to carry out the redevelopment.

The Tribunal also considered whether Icon’s intention was “conditional” – i.e. whether its plans for redevelopment were tied to the purpose of defeating On Tower’s bid for Code rights. It further had to determine whether the works Icon planned amounted to genuine “redevelopment”.

On this last point, the Tribunal held that replacing one mast with another can constitute redevelopment under the Code, but only if the legal tests around intent and reasonable prospects are met.

On Icon’s intent, the Tribunal found that the company’s redevelopment plan was investment-led, based on a business plan assuming all MNOs would migrate to the new mast. However, it found no evidence that Icon had actually engaged with the MNOs, and Icon’s own witnesses accepted there was a real risk the MNOs would not move to the new mast. The Tribunal said that while Icon has “a firm and settled intention to carry out its redevelopment” this plan is “wedded to MNO’s migrating from On Tower”.

In considering the likelihood of redevelopment works going ahead, the Tribunal concluded that Icon had not shown a reasonable prospect of carrying out the redevelopment as planned, because “on the balance of probabilities … the most likely outcome is that the MNOs will not migrate to Icon’s new tower”. It reached this view after considering evidence that pointed to Icon’s lack of relationship with the MNOs, the fact Icon has built other “speculative” towers which remain unoccupied, and the fact the MNOs have been working with On Tower to find an alternative site.

The FTT said: “MNOs have not migrated to any of Icon’s new towers. This litigation will have damaged any future relationship Icon may have had with MNOs.”

On the issue of conditionality, the Tribunal accepted that while Icon’s strategy was partly motivated by a desire to remove On Tower as a competitor, this is “a perfectly legitimate business aim” and not improper. However, case law has established that, for the redevelopment defence to be relied upon, the intention to redevelop must exist independently of whether an operator asserts a claim to Code rights – and the Tribunal in this case considered that Icon’s redevelopment plan was so closely tied to the outcome of the litigation that it lacked that necessary independence.

On the issue of conditionality, the Tribunal accepted that while Icon’s strategy was partly motivated by a desire to remove On Tower as a competitor, this is “a perfectly legitimate business aim” and not improper. However, case law has established that, for the redevelopment defence to be relied upon, the intention to redevelop must exist independently of whether an operator asserts a claim to Code rights – and the Tribunal in this case considered that “Icon would intend to do the same works” even if On Tower did not seek Code rights.

As a result of its findings, the Tribunal held that Icon had not established a genuine and deliverable intention to redevelop within the meaning of paragraph 21(5) of the Code. As such, its redevelopment defence failed. The Tribunal ruled that the statutory test for imposing a new Code agreement in favour of On Tower was met.

Property dispute resolution specialist Mairghread Yule of Pinsent Masons, who acted for On Tower in the case, said: “This decision will be welcomed by Code operators. This judgment will be of wide interest and application in the industry, especially regarding redevelopment. It provides useful findings on redevelopment intention – subjective, objective and conditionality intention – and how this will be assessed and considered by the judiciary.”

Ian Morgan, who was part of the Pinsent Masons team involved in the earlier Supreme Court proceedings, added: “This decision will be of significance not only to parties dealing with the Electronic Communications Code, but also because it considers in some detail significant case law relevant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which may be of broader appeal.”

The financings included a EUR950million multicurrency revolving credit facility, EUR1.215bn Term Loan A and EUR1.25bn Term Loan B, as well as EUR1bn senior secured PIK toggle notes. The term loans refinanced existing debt, and the PIK notes funded a distribution to sponsor Hellman & Friedman. The revolving credit facility will provide Verisure with additional flexibility and liquidity going forward.

Verisure is the leading provider of professionally monitored security services in Europe and Latin America, and a portfolio company of Hellman & Friedman.

The financings included a EUR950million multicurrency revolving credit facility, EUR1.215bn Term Loan A and EUR1.25bn Term Loan B, as well as EUR1bn senior secured PIK toggle notes. The term loans refinanced existing debt, and the PIK notes funded a distribution to sponsor Hellman & Friedman. The revolving credit facility will provide Verisure with additional flexibility and liquidity going forward.

Verisure is the leading provider of professionally monitored security services in Europe and Latin America, and a portfolio company of Hellman & Friedman.

It has appeared in Tesla showrooms, on its factory floors and has even posed with Kim Kardashian.

But Elon Musk’s vision for his human-like robot Optimus is much grander than that.

Since first unveiling it at a Tesla showcase in 2022, the tech billionaire has suggested his company’s droid could play a huge role in the homes and lives of people all over the world.

Along with self-driving robotaxis and Cybertrucks, Musk believes Tesla robots are key to establishing a foothold in the artificial intelligence (AI) landscape.

And investors who signed off on his $1tn pay package on Thursday would appear to agree.

One of the many tasks Musk must complete to get his whopping pay deal is to deliver a million AI bots over the next decade.

But is Tesla’s big bet on humanoid robots rooted in science fiction or reality?

Silicon Valley is gunning hard for humanoids.

A report released by Morgan Stanley on Friday predicted Apple, which is reportedly looking into the robots, could potentially earn $133bn a year from them by 2040.

Foxconn is reported to be deploying them at its Nvidia factory in Texas.

The idea of advanced AI within a human-shaped shell is an astonishingly powerful combination in theory. It would let the tech interact with the physical world around it – and yes that includes us.

While many companies have sought to develop human-like robots for factory and industrial use – such as UK robotics firm Humanoid – some are already looking to insert the tech in homes.

The highly-publicised Neo from tech firm 1X, slated to launch in 2026, can do menial chores like emptying the dishwasher, folding clothes and fetching you items.

It will cost $20,000 but it does come with a caveat – the WSJ reported it was actually controlled by a person wearing a virtual reality headset.

Forrester analyst Brian Hopkins said the falling costs of components, combined with improvements to robot dexterity and AI, was helping to make humanoid robots feasible for a variety of different settings.

“From warehouses and restaurants to elder care and security, new use cases are gaining traction fast,” he wrote in a blog post.

“If current trajectories hold, humanoid robots could disrupt many physical-service industries significantly by 2030.”

Musk previously told investors his robots had “the potential to be more significant than the vehicle business, over time”.

He went one step further after his pay package deal was approved on Thursday, saying he believed it could be “the biggest product of all time by far, bigger than cell phones, bigger than anything”.

He has also suggested it might boost Tesla’s AI ambitions – particularly in advancing artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems capable of matching human abilities.

“Tesla AI might play a role in AGI, given that it trains against the outside world, especially with the advent of Optimus,” he wrote on X in 2022.

Elsewhere in the space, Boston Dynamics’ hydraulic humanoid Atlas has captivated millions on YouTube with its gymnastics and dance routines.

Viral videos of its leaps, bounds, somersaults and backflips have shown the advances in robotics over the years – with scientists now seizing upon the AI boom to boost their capabilities with systems enabling them to undertake more complex tasks.

When it was retired last year, it was replaced with a newer, fully electric model developers said could contort its metal frame in even more ways.

But many of the roboticists the BBC has spoken to over the years have rolled their eyes about tech firms shaping robots like humans.

Practically, there is little reason for robots to have legs.

The mechanics and hardware involved in creating machine legs are far more intensive.

As one scientist put it – “wheels are so much more efficient”.

And don’t get them started on why a robot doesn’t need to have a head.

Psychologically though, humanoids have long been a human fascination – and something reflected decades of sci-fi.

You need only look to the legacy of characters such as Star Wars’ C-3PO, Futurama’s Bender or the Terminator to see humans might sometimes feel more comfortable around something closely resembling us.

Back in reality, humanoid machines have been often far less polished and more gimmicky, clumsy and buggy than their fictional counterparts.

But that appears to be changing with the likes of Optimus and sleeker droids which edge us closer to living in an uncanny valley.

Tesla’s droid has been appearing in more public settings as of late – serving burgers and popcorn to customers at the company’s Hollywood diner.

Sam Altman, boss of ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, said in May he doesn’t think the world is ready for humanoids, while simultaneously describing it as an incoming moment.

There’s no love lost between him and Elon Musk but on this occasion they seem to be on the same page that the robots are on their way – and Musk certainly has the power, the influence and the cash to make it happen.

Air traffic controllers are going without pay – but the bills don’t stoppublished at 11:29 GMT

11:29 GMT

“Like many families, we didn’t plan for a shutdown. Yet the bills don’t stop.”

These are the words of one air traffic controller who has had to take up a second job working for a food delivery service to supplement his income – or lack of – during the government shutdown.

Writing recently for MSNBC, the single father says he’s working this job after his daily air traffic shift ends and is “sleeping only two hours most nights”.

He’s one of thousands of air traffic controllers who have now been working without pay for two weeks. Yesterday, many received paychecks in the amount of $0.

The shutdown has exacerbated an already-strained body of federal workers. While some air traffic controllers are working without pay, others are furloughed altogether.

Some are looking for second jobs, like the man above, while others are increasingly calling in sick.

“The controllers are wearing thin,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told Fox News on Sunday.

Nick Daniels, the president of the labour union representing more than 20,000 aviation workers, put the situation into stark terms on Wednesday.

“Air traffic controllers are texting: ‘I don’t even have enough money to put gas in my car to come to work,’” he told CNN.

“We base what we do day in and day out on predictability,” he said. “Right now there is no predictability.”