Supreme Court Case Spotlight: Easements in Focus

On 23 July 2026, David Holland KC and Rupert Cohen will appear before the UK Supreme Court in Peter Nigel Joseph Stenner v Teignbridge District Council.

The appeal brings into sharp focus a critical legal question in the law of easements: what is the correct legal test when applying the “ouster principle” to determine whether a claimed easement is legally valid and capable of forming the subject matter of a grant?

The case will force the Supreme Court to consider the long-standing precedent set by Batchelor v Marlow [2001] EWCA Civ 1051, which has shaped the legal landscape around easements for over two decades. This states that, in order to be valid, an easement must leave the owner of the servient tenement with some “reasonable user” of his land.

At the heart of the appeal is Mr. Stenner’s claim to an easement allowing him to store his boats on a small triangular parcel of land, owned by the respondent council, during the winter months. Both the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal previously ruled against the appellant, concluding that the claimed right contravened the ouster principle and thus could not qualify as an easement. The appellant will argue that the ouster principle as set out in Batchelor v Marlow is wrongly stated and (echoing the criticism of Lord Scott in Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] 1 WLR 2620) that the correct test is whether the servient owner is deprived of possession and control.

With the Supreme Court now set to hear the matter on 23 July, a potential shift in property law could be on the horizon.

David Holland KC is leading Rupert Cohen in representing the appellant, Mr. Stenner, instructed by Jasdeep Rai of Spencer West LLP.