Jonathan Wills

Property

Jon is regularly instructed to appear in the High Court, with recent experience including cases involving forfeiture, landlord’s consent and party walls. He is often instructed to obtain interim remedies in the Chancery Division, including injunctions and freezing injunctions. In the County Court, his recent experience includes a substantial recent forfeiture trial.

He is instructed to advise on the full range of property related matters, including commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes, lease renewals, dilapidations, easements, restrictive covenants, land registration, land contracts, leasehold enfranchisement, possession actions, nuisance, and boundary disputes.

Jon has substantial experience of appearing before the tribunals, including a five-day land registration trial in which he succeeded in resisting an application to remove his client from the proprietorship register of land, despite it having been determined that such registration had constituted a mistake.

Jon is regularly instructed in appeals relating to Assets of Community Value, both at the local authority review stage, and before the First-tier and Upper Tribunals.

Telecommunications

Jon has a particular specialism in matters under the Electronic Communications Code. He has appeared in a large number of the reported cases in England since the Code came into force, and regularly speaks at conferences and seminars on topical matters under the Code.

Because of his Code work, he is ranked in the Telecoms field in the 2022 edition of Chambers & Partners, which includes the following comments:

‘He is commercial and practical, and knows how things work on the ground.’

‘He is a good advocate who is thorough in his written work.’

‘He has an impressive knowledge of the interaction between the ECC and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.’

He is similarly ranked as a leading junior in the 2022 edition of Legal 500. The 2021 edition also said this about him:

‘He is calm, succinct and knowledgeable. His written work is of the highest standard and generally hits the nail on the head in a concise and easy to understand fashion.’

He appeared against a silk as sole counsel for the Site Provider in EE Ltd v Islington, the first case under the New Code relating to consideration and compensation.

He also appeared against a silk as sole counsel for the successful Site Provider in the CTIL v University of the Arts case, which was the first decision in a Code case in which the principle of a code agreement was in dispute under para 21.

Other successful recent appearances include in the Upper Tribunal in Ashloch, and in Arqiva v AP Wireless, both of which went to the Supreme Court.

He also represented the Site Provider in the first redevelopment case under the New Code (akin to the 1954 Act ground (f)) in the case of Meyrick (also known as EE v Chichester), and acted in the University of London case in the Court of Appeal.

He sought and obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on numerous grounds in the On Tower (Dale Park) case, and also appeared at the interim stage in the case of EE v Stephenson.

He has significant experience in the area of telecoms lease renewals under the 1954 Act. In this regard he appeared at three interim hearings in what was to be the first such case, in Vodafone v Portsmouth Water (before the matter settled), and in late 2021 appeared against a silk at a three-day trial before Martin Rodger QC in EE v Morriss, a case determining a number of legal points relating to the valuation of rent in respect of 1954 Act telecoms leases.

More recent cases which have drawn case comment online include:

• CTIL v St Martins Property in which intrusive works were successfully resisted at the interim stage
• Crawley BC v EE, in which Jon, acting against a Silk, obtained the first Order for the removal of apparatus under the Code
• EE v HSBC, in which the Deputy President held that the usual Order of the Tribunal in para 26 cases where the parties agree that an agreement should be imposed is that the Operator pays the Site Provider’s costs.

Planning

Jon has wide experience of planning and environmental work. He regularly appears at planning inquiries, both for developers and for local authorities. He has experience of a broad range of inquiries, from enforcement inquiries to substantial ‘recovered’ appeals.

Examples include acting for Tewkesbury Borough Council in a two-week long inquiry regarding an application of national importance for a gas pressure reduction installation made by National Grid (represented by David Holgate KC), and for a regulatory body in the Thames Tideway Tunnel DCO examination process.

He has been instructed in a number of judicial reviews and statutory appeals in the High Court and Court of Appeal. One example is the case of R (Bibb) v Bristol City Council in which he successfully obtained permission for the judicial review of the grant of planning permission relating to the Tesco store in Bristol that has been at the centre of riots and protests.

He regularly advises on all aspects of planning law and procedure including Environmental Impact Assessment, compulsory purchase, use classes, enforcement action and listed buildings. Additionally he has significant experience of defending planning related prosecutions in the criminal courts.

Jon has a particular specialism in matters under the Electronic Communications Code. He has appeared in a large number of the reported cases in England since the Code came into force, and regularly speaks at conferences and seminars on topical matters under the Code.

Because of his Code work, he is ranked in the Telecoms field in the 2022 edition of Chambers & Partners, which includes the following comments:

‘He is commercial and practical, and knows how things work on the ground.’

‘He is a good advocate who is thorough in his written work.’

‘He has an impressive knowledge of the interaction between the ECC and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.’

He is similarly ranked as a leading junior in the 2022 edition of Legal 500. The 2021 edition also said this about him:

‘He is calm, succinct and knowledgeable. His written work is of the highest standard and generally hits the nail on the head in a concise and easy to understand fashion.’

He appeared against a silk as sole counsel for the Site Provider in EE Ltd v Islington, the first case under the New Code relating to consideration and compensation.

He also appeared against a silk as sole counsel for the successful Site Provider in the CTIL v University of the Arts case, which was the first decision in a Code case in which the principle of a code agreement was in dispute under para 21.

Other successful recent appearances include in the Upper Tribunal in Ashloch, and in Arqiva v AP Wireless, both of which went to the Supreme Court.

He also represented the Site Provider in the first redevelopment case under the New Code (akin to the 1954 Act ground (f)) in the case of Meyrick (also known as EE v Chichester), and acted in the University of London case in the Court of Appeal.

He sought and obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on numerous grounds in the On Tower (Dale Park) case, and also appeared at the interim stage in the case of EE v Stephenson.

He has significant experience in the area of telecoms lease renewals under the 1954 Act. In this regard he appeared at three interim hearings in what was to be the first such case, in Vodafone v Portsmouth Water (before the matter settled), and in late 2021 appeared against a silk at a three-day trial before Martin Rodger QC in EE v Morriss, a case determining a number of legal points relating to the valuation of rent in respect of 1954 Act telecoms leases.

More recent cases which have drawn case comment online include:

• CTIL v St Martins Property in which intrusive works were successfully resisted at the interim stage
• Crawley BC v EE, in which Jon, acting against a Silk, obtained the first Order for the removal of apparatus under the Code
• EE v HSBC, in which the Deputy President held that the usual Order of the Tribunal in para 26 cases where the parties agree that an agreement should be imposed is that the Operator pays the Site Provider’s costs.

ADR

Telecommunications

Jon has a particular specialism in matters under the Electronic Communications Code. He has appeared in a large number of the reported cases in England since the Code came into force, and regularly speaks at conferences and seminars on topical matters under the Code.

Because of his Code work, he is ranked in the Telecoms field in the 2022 edition of Chambers & Partners, which includes the following comments:

‘He is commercial and practical, and knows how things work on the ground.’

‘He is a good advocate who is thorough in his written work.’

‘He has an impressive knowledge of the interaction between the ECC and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.’

He is similarly ranked as a leading junior in the 2022 edition of Legal 500. The 2021 edition also said this about him:

‘He is calm, succinct and knowledgeable. His written work is of the highest standard and generally hits the nail on the head in a concise and easy to understand fashion.’

He appeared against a silk as sole counsel for the Site Provider in EE Ltd v Islington, the first case under the New Code relating to consideration and compensation.

He also appeared against a silk as sole counsel for the successful Site Provider in the CTIL v University of the Arts case, which was the first decision in a Code case in which the principle of a code agreement was in dispute under para 21.

Other successful recent appearances include in the Upper Tribunal in Ashloch, and in Arqiva v AP Wireless, both of which went to the Supreme Court.

He also represented the Site Provider in the first redevelopment case under the New Code (akin to the 1954 Act ground (f)) in the case of Meyrick (also known as EE v Chichester), and acted in the University of London case in the Court of Appeal.

He sought and obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on numerous grounds in the On Tower (Dale Park) case, and also appeared at the interim stage in the case of EE v Stephenson.

He has significant experience in the area of telecoms lease renewals under the 1954 Act. In this regard he appeared at three interim hearings in what was to be the first such case, in Vodafone v Portsmouth Water (before the matter settled), and in late 2021 appeared against a silk at a three-day trial before Martin Rodger QC in EE v Morriss, a case determining a number of legal points relating to the valuation of rent in respect of 1954 Act telecoms leases.

More recent cases which have drawn case comment online include:

• CTIL v St Martins Property in which intrusive works were successfully resisted at the interim stage
• Crawley BC v EE, in which Jon, acting against a Silk, obtained the first Order for the removal of apparatus under the Code
• EE v HSBC, in which the Deputy President held that the usual Order of the Tribunal in para 26 cases where the parties agree that an agreement should be imposed is that the Operator pays the Site Provider’s costs.