Peter Nigel Joseph Stenner v Teignbridge District Council
Decision date: 26 June 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 204 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerns whether Mr Stenner acquired a prescriptive easement to store up to six boats on a triangular part of Teignbridge District Council's Lower Point Car Park each year from 1 October to 31 May. The FTT found the factual elements for prescription satisfied but held the claimed right could not form the subject‑matter of a grant because, in degree, it would deprive the council of any reasonable use of the Triangle; the appeal challenges that "ouster" conclusion and the FTT's reliance on authorities such as Copeland. The FTT's decision to cancel the registration was appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The judgment identifies as the governing principle that a right to store items on servient land can only be an easement if, in degree, it does not leave the servient owner without any reasonable use of the land; whether a claimed storage right is too invasive is a fact‑specific question informed by authorities like Copeland and Batchelor, and seasonal prescription is assessed by reference to continuity within the claimed seasonal period.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The decision records that the boundary between permissible easements and rights that effectively exclude the servient owner remains fact‑dependent and not definitively settled; it also notes distinctions between parking rights and longer‑term storage, and that post‑Batchelor authorities and dicta (including the 72‑hour observation) are relevant but must be applied to their particular facts.