When does a right go too far? The Ouster Principle and prescriptive easements

The concept of an ‘easement’ is one that many people are familiar with. It is a legal right to use or enter another person’s land for a specific purpose. It can include things like a right of way, a right to park, laying utilities and services and many other things. But what happens when the right claimed starts to dominate the land, essentially shutting the landowner out of their land?

This is where the ouster principle comes into play. Simply put, the law will not recognise a right as an easement (like a right of way or a right to park) if it gives the person claiming it such control that the landowner is left with no use of their own land. This issue commonly arises when considering prescriptive easements (e.g., an easement arising from long use) and whether the claimed right can meet the legal definition of an easement. It commonly arises in cases involving parking rights.

Two recent cases highlight how this plays out in practice.

Case 1: Winter boat storage – Stenner v Teignbridge District Council [2025] UKUT 204 (LC)

Mr Stenner ran a boat hire business and, for years, stored boats and equipment in part of a council-owned car park during winter. He tried to claim a legal right to continue using the space, arguing that long-term use had created a “prescriptive easement.”

While seasonal use can, in theory, qualify, the court saw a problem here. The boats occupied the space for several months during the winter period, leaving the council unable to use it for the entire period. This went beyond a shared right. Mr Stenner was effectively in possession, and so the easement claim failed.

Case 2: Parking on a passageway – Viscido v Raimondo (2025) FTT 22 July

In another dispute, homeowners argued they had acquired a permanent right to park on a private passageway near their garages.

The tribunal found the parking had not occurred long enough to establish a prescriptive right. However, the most interesting point considered by the Judge was whether the right claimed could qualify as an easement in the first place. The claimants were seeking a right to park a vehicle permanently in a limited area.

The Judge found that granting a permanent parking right would have blocked the landowner from their own property and left the landowner without any meaningful use of the land over which the rights were claimed. Applying the ouster principle, the right would not qualify as an easement.

What this means for neighbours and landowners

These cases illustrate the delicate balance between a legitimate right and one that goes too far. Short-term or occasional use, such as dropping off goods, can often be valid. But long-term, exclusive use, such as indefinite parking or storing boats for months, rarely is.

For landowners, it serves as a reminder to challenge claims that risk losing control of their land. And for anyone relying on long-term use to establish a right, exclusivity can work against you in court.

Contact our Property Disputes solicitors today

Property disputes over rights of way, parking, or land use are common and can become heated. With the right guidance, many disputes can be resolved before escalating further.

At Ashtons Legal, our property dispute lawyers can clarify your position, help protect your land, and work toward practical resolutions.

Please get in touch with our specialist Property Litigation team by using our online enquiry form or calling 0330 404 0738.