[2005] EWHC 920 (TCC), 9 May 2005. Claimants (P) had sought to get defendant's (H) base station, which was installed 22 metres from the boundary of P's property where P both lived and worked, removed or repositioned as it had had substantial adverse effects on P's physical well being and enjoyment of their property. P had disposed of their interest in the property prior to the trial. P contended that their objection under the Electronic Telecommunications Code contained in the Telecommunications Act 1984 Sched 2 was well founded and that the adverse effect on P's health and well being was attributable to emissions from the base station. "Held": judgment for the defendant. P were not entitled to seek a removal order as they had disposed of their interest in the property prior to trial. Para 17(6) of the Code only permitted the court to uphold an objection if the interest in the property was current. The test in para 17(6) in respect of the material prejudicing the enjoyment of the property was objective and P had to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that that had happened. P's evidence failed as it was based on subjective perception.