By Richard Bell
|
Published 22 October 2026
A recent County Court decision in On Tower UK Ltd v AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd considers an issue that will be familiar to many property professionals: what happens when the land occupied by a tenant does not correspond precisely with the red-edged land shown on the lease plan?
The case concerned two telecommunications sites, Barber’s Moor and Commons Wood, and the validity of renewal notices served under section 26 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
At both sites, the physical compounds differed from the areas edged red on the lease plans. At Commons Wood there was approximately 90% overlap, while at Barber’s Moor the overlap was only around 10%. Despite those discrepancies, the compounds had remained in their existing locations for more than 20 years, with rent paid and accepted, and the parties treating the leases as governing the sites as occupied.
Demise issue
The principal issue was how the extent of the demise should be determined where there was a mismatch between the lease plan and the position on the ground.
The court emphasised that a plan is only one piece of relevant evidence. The correct approach is to consider the conveyance/lease in the context of the surrounding circumstances and ask what a reasonable person, standing on the site with the plan in hand, would have understood the parties to have intended.
The tenant succeeded on the demise issue at Commons Wood. The compound was substantially the same as that shown on the lease plans which were only a guide to the boundary.
The position was different at Barber's Moor, where the compound was 10 metres to the east of that shown on the plans with only a 10% overlap.
Estoppel issue
Although the tenant failed on the demise issue at Barber's Moor, it succeeded on proprietary estoppel.
The landlord had allowed the compound to be constructed and operated in its actual location for more than two decades and throughout that period both parties behaved on the basis that the lease governed that land. The judge held that these facts gave rise to a proprietary estoppel and that it would be unconscionable for the landlord to deny the lease extended to the compound as built.
Notice issue
The landlord argued that even if the tenant enjoyed rights over the occupied compounds, the section 26 notices were ineffective because they referred to the premises described in the leases rather than the areas actually occupied. The court rejected this. The leases governed the tenant’s occupation and a reasonable recipient would have understood the notices as relating to the sites occupied by the tenant.
What does this mean for landlords and tenants?
The decision demonstrates that in determining disputes concerning the extent of a demise the court will consider the lease as a whole, the physical characteristics of the site and the parties' conduct over time.
For commercial landlords and tenants, particularly those involved in telecommunications, energy infrastructure and other operational sites, the judgment highlights a number of practical points:
- Lease plans remain important, but not always determinative. Courts will look at the lease, the site and the surrounding circumstances as a whole.
- Long-term occupation can create powerful estoppel arguments, particularly where permanent infrastructure has been constructed with the landlord's knowledge
- Parties should not assume that minor defects in describing premises will necessarily invalidate a section 26 notice. Courts are likely to consider what a reasonable recipient would have understood in the factual context.
