May 15, 2026
Publications
Singapore High Court finds Telco liable for trespass, not entitled to rent-free space under COPIF
Altitude Xperience Pte Ltd (formerly known as Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd) v Simba Telecom Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 133 (“Altitude Xperience v Simba”) is the first reported High Court decision on a COPIF 2018 dispute. We turn to the examine the Court’s decision and its future implications for building owners, developers and telcos.
Brief introduction to COPIF
Under the Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings 2018 (“COPIF 2018”), broadly speaking, building owners are required to provide rent-free "unused" space (i.e., Mobile Installation Space (“MIS”)) to mobile telecommunication service providers (“Telcos”) for the installation of their mobile equipment. The purpose of the COPIF is to ensure that developers/owners of buildings (“BOs”) provide adequate space and facilities, for the deployment and operation of equipment to be used to provide infocommunication services to their buildings and surrounding properties.
COPIF 2018 came into operation in December 2018. Disputes often arise between BOs and Telcos regarding the provision of space, mainly resulting from:-
The expiry of existing agreements / arrangements between Telcos and BOs for payment of charges / fees for the use of the BO’s space, COPIF 2018 does not operate to terminate such agreements, or to mandate that the spaces which are subject to these agreements are automatically converted to MIS. Upon expiry, Telcos may assert that they are entitled to continue using the space without charge, while the BOs prefer renewing the agreement or re-purposing the space for other use.
The term “unused space” is not defined under COPIF 2018. Where BOs had provided some space to Telcos to install their mobile equipment, but now wish to re-purpose that space which is housing the mobile equipment, the question is whether the space now falls outside the scope of “unused space” and is therefore incapable of being designated as MIS.
The Facts and Court’s Holdings
Simba Telecom (formerly TPG Singapore) leased ground floor and rooftop spaces (the “Spaces”) from Altitude Xperience, the BO, and deployed its mobile equipment there since around September 2017. Simba made certain payments to the BO for the use of the Spaces pursuant to their oral / written agreements. However, it was disputed whether parties had reached an agreement for use of the Spaces after September 2019.
The BO claimed that Simba had only paid for use of the Spaces until September 2019, after which there was no agreement for the licensing of the Spaces. Therefore, Simba was trespassing on the BO’s property since September 2019. In addition, the Spaces could not be designated as MIS since it was not “unused space”. The BO had planned to install additional aircon units on the rooftop, which would be rented out to host events (and generate income for the BO). As an aside, the term “unused space” is not defined in COPIF.
Simba claims that the Spaces fell within the definition of “MIS” and therefore it was entitled to use the Spaces free of charge since the COPIF 2018 came into operation in December 2018. However, the payments made to the BO were a goodwill gesture for transition into the COPIF regime.
The Court found that, on the facts, Simba had only made payments for the use of the Spaces up to 19 September 2019. Further, the parties did not arrive at any agreement for Simba to use the Spaces after 20 September 2019.
As to whether Simba would be liable for trespass, the issue turned on whether the Spaces are “unused spaces” under COPIF, which would determine whether they constituted MIS. If so, Simba was entitled to use the Spaces rent-free and would not be liable for trespass.
The COPIF provided that in the event of a dispute the parties could refer the matter to IMDA for a final and binding determination. The Court opined that such a determination would involve complex technical facts and issues of policy, for which IMDA is best equipped to handle.
When Simba referred the matter to IMDA for determination in 2021, IMDA issued its decision that the rooftop space was not "unused space" and therefore did not constitute rent-free MIS under COPIF. IMDA also directed the BO to complete installation of the aircon units within 12 months, failing which IMDA may designate the space as MIS. In 2024, the Minister upheld IMDA’s decision. Simba did not apply for a quashing order against the Minister's decision.
Therefore, the Court held that Simba was never entitled to use the Spaces free of rent under COPIF. Since Simba had occupied the Spaces since September 2019 without the BO’s agreement / authorisation, the Court held that this amounted to trespass. Simba was ordered to pay damages of $698,594.50 to the BO.
Effect of future COPIF Amendments
This is perhaps the first time that a COPIF 2018 dispute of this nature has been decided by the Singapore High Court, and there have been 2 recent cases decided by the State Courts. Despite the proposed amendments to be made to the COPIF, these may not be the last cases to be litigated in the courts.
In March 2026, IMDA issued a consultation paper on a review of the COPIF. Among other things, IMDA proposes to amend the COPIF as follows:
- First, MIS locations have to be identified upfront and incorporated into the development designs of new developments. The idea is that Telcos and BOs can plan and deploy mobile equipment before residents and tenants move in, avoid costly retrofitting works, and speed up mobile coverage enhancement works.
- If this approach entails removing the term “unused space” from the COPIF, it may reduce or eliminate issues of whether certain spaces should be designated as MIS depending on whether the BOs intend to use it for another purpose.
- However, without clear timelines and engagement processes, this may inadvertently lead to protracted discussions / disputes between Telcos and BOs during the design / construction phase.
- Second, on the issue of legacy agreements, IMDA proposes an “auto-conversion” approach. Briefly, where parties have entered into a written agreement for the provision of MIS, the space identified as MIS shall be automatically designated as MIS after the expiry or termination of said agreement unless and until (i) the parties agree otherwise; or (ii) IMDA makes a written decision that the space shall no longer be MIS.
- This amendment, if passed, will introduce welcome clarity post-termination / expiry of such agreements.
- However the issue of whether the space is indeed rent-free MIS still remains, as the spaces leased/licensed under such agreements may not be designated as MIS in the first place. This could resurrect issues of whether the spaces are “unused” especially where BOs could generate alternative revenue from them.
- Third, upon the transfer of a property from one BO to another, any MIS provided by the outgoing BO shall be automatically designated as MIS in respect of the incoming BO unless, and until (i) the parties agree otherwise; or (ii) IMDA makes a written decision that the space shall no longer be MIS. This however does not fully address the situation where the space is not designated as MIS in the first place (which is typically the case where there is an existing agreement / arrangement between the parties, and where IMDA has not made a binding determination).
Concluding Thoughts
This decision is significant for both building owners and Telcos.
If such existing agreements expire in the near future and are not renewed or re-negotiated, and the BOs intend to use the space for another purpose, this may result in deadlocks which would require parties to agree on an alternative location and who bears the relocation costs. If the space is not already designated as MIS, IMDA may have to step in to make a binding determination. Alternatively, parties may consider appropriate short-term extensions so as to reduce commercial uncertainty and potential liability in damages.
Where such disputes have been referred to the IMDA for a decision, parties should await the outcome before turning to the Court for a resolution. Otherwise, the Court may stay the proceedings until IMDA has issued its decision, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (see MCST Plan No. 4234 v Simba Telecom Pte Ltd [2025] SGDC 263).
Telcos that have installed mobile equipment on building premises cannot assume that they are entitled to use the space rent-free after the agreements expire. Unless there has been a clear pronouncement on this, Telcos may be liable in trespass and damages may extend to loss of revenue that could be generated by the building owner from the space.
Building owners should be cognisant that they are obliged under the COPIF to provide MIS. If building owners take matters into their own hands and remove the Telco’s equipment prematurely, they may find themselves at the risk of liability for hefty reinstatement costs if the space is found to be rent-free MIS.
It remains to be seen whether Simba will apply for a quashing order against the Minister’s decision or an appeal against the High Court’s decision. Watch this Space.
