21
(1)
Subject to sub-paragraph (5) and paragraph 27ZA
, the court may make an order under paragraph 20 if (and only if) the court thinks that both of the following conditions are met.
(2)
The first condition is that the prejudice caused to the relevant person by the order is capable of being adequately compensated by money.
(3)
The second condition is that the public benefit likely to result from the making of the order outweighs the prejudice to the relevant person.
(4)
In deciding whether the second condition is met, the court must have regard to the public interest in access to a choice of high quality electronic communications services.
(5)
The court may not make an order under paragraph 20 if it thinks that the relevant person intends to redevelop all or part of the land to which the code right would relate, or any neighbouring land, and could not reasonably do so if the order were made.
Cases considering Schedule 3A, paragraph 21 15
[2021] EWCA Civ 90 · 29 January 2021Defines
Before imposing an agreement, the court applies the statutory prejudice and public-benefit test, subject to the redevelopment bar. The test was not reached because jurisdiction failed. (see para [29])
[2019] EWCA Civ 2075 · 26 November 2019Limits
Paragraph 21 supplies the full test for imposing an agreement under paragraph 20. The paragraph 26 good arguable case test is a distinct, lower interim threshold for showing that paragraph 21 is met. (see paras [13], [59], [77], [83])
The public interest in access to a choice of high quality electronic communications services illustrates the Code’s public-interest purpose. That purpose supported treating preliminary MSV operations as works connected with installation. (see paras [47], [55])
The redevelopment restriction was considered as a safeguard for landowners. The court held that risks to redevelopment could be addressed by making an interim right terminate on a specified event, such as planning permission. (see paras [79]-[80])
[2026] UKUT 89 (LC) · 27 February 2026Interprets
The Tribunal confirmed that the paragraph 21 conditions for imposing a code agreement were met once Icon failed to establish the paragraph 21(5) ground of opposition. (see paras [5]-[6])
The Tribunal held that the site owner had to prove a firm and settled intention, a reasonable prospect of carrying out the redevelopment, and an unconditional intention. Icon failed on the objective element because migration by the mobile network operators was not shown to be reasonably prospective. (see paras [15]-[16]; [59]-[60])
What each judgment says about Schedule 3A, paragraph 21 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.