Podcast: Stenner v Teignbridge District Council – Why a Supreme Court easement case matters for real estate
Jasdeep Rai, Partner at Spencer West, acts for the Appellant, Peter Stenner, in the Supreme Court appeal hearing taking place on 22 July 2026. This landmark case could finally clarify the correct legal test to be used when applying the “ouster principle” to determine whether a claimed easement is legally valid and capable of forming the subject matter of a grant.
A dispute about winter boat storage on a small triangular area of a council-owned car park may not sound like the kind of case that could affect the wider real estate market.
But Stenner v Teignbridge District Council raises a question with potentially significant ripple effects. When does a claimed right over land become so extensive or invasive that it ousts the true owner from their land?
The Background
Mr Stenner owns beach huts close to Lower Point Car Park in Teignmouth and has operated a seasonal boat hire business from there since 1982. During the summer months, the boats are kept on moorings. During the winter off-season, Mr Stenner used part of the Lower Point Car Park, described as “the Triangle”, to store up to six boats and related equipment, and to carry out maintenance.
Mr Stenner’s case is that he has acquired this right by prescription.
In the First-tier Tribunal, it was accepted that Mr Stenner’s use of the Triangle had been “as of right” and sufficiently continuous. Save for the application of the ouster principle, Mr Stenner satisfied all conditions for establishing the prescriptive easement.
However, the First-tier Tribunal ultimately concluded that Mr Stenner’s use of the Triangle left the Council without any “reasonable use” of their land, thus ousting the Council from its land. The Upper Tribunal subsequently upheld that decision.
The Legal Conflict: “Reasonable Use” vs “Possession and Control”
The conclusions reached by the lower courts on the ouster principle reflect the “reasonable use” test set by the 2001 Court of Appeal decision in Batchelor v Marlow, which has shaped the law on parking, storage, and intensive land-use easements for more than two decades. Effectively, Batchelor established that if a claimed easement leaves the landowner without any reasonable use of their own land, the right cannot exist as an easement.
The Supreme Court will now consider whether the “reasonable use” test remains the correct approach, or if the test should instead focus on whether the servient owner retains possession and control of the land.
This conflict is discussed in greater detail in the below podcast:
Why This Matters for the Real Estate Market
For real estate practitioners, the appeal is critical because easements are central to how land is used, managed, and developed.
Rights of way, parking rights, equipment storage, utility connections and operational rights over neighbouring land can all be immensely valuable commercially. The line between a valid easement and a right that grants too much practical control is therefore not merely academic.
Jasdeep Rai says the case should be watched closely by those involved in property disputes, commercial transactions, and asset management.
“Easements can be critical to how land functions day-to-day. Hopefully, the outcome of this appeal will clarify the limits of those rights, as it directly affects how parties document arrangements, assess risk, and structure future transactions,” he said.
“The appeal provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to resolve an issue that has generated uncertainty for decades. The question is not just about one small area of land in Teignmouth; it is about the fundamental legal test that determines whether certain claimed rights over land can exist as easements at all.”
Whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court’s decision will be of vital interest to landowners, developers, local authorities, occupiers, lenders, and advisers. It may reshape how existing arrangements are interpreted and how future rights are drafted, negotiated, and registered.
