Easements: rights of way established over Teesside development site

An easement can be acquired by express or implied grant, or by prescription as of right, ie without force, secrecy or permission. The High Court has considered these concepts in South Tees Development Corporation and another v PD Teesport Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 214 (Ch), which concerned the site of the former British Steel steelworks at Teesside, near Middlesbrough, described as the largest brownfield development in Europe. The claimants and the third party were the freehold owners of the land over which the defendant – the statutory harbour authority for the River Tees and owner and operator of the port of Teesport, one of the UK’s major ports – asserted rights of way. The defendant, which bore the burden of proof, claimed express, implied or prescriptive rights of way to access three areas that it owned: 1. South Gare, where it claimed express or prescriptive rights over access route 6, owned by the claimants to the point where it reached the defendant’s land, to access the breakwater, lighthouse and other facilities which it owned and maintained. The defendant failed in its attempts to compile a complete right of way across the changing route of access route 6 through conveyances of 1891, 1925 and 1974, but it did establish a prescriptive right for all purposes and all vehicles under both the Prescription Act 1832 and lost modern grant. 2. Redcar Quay, where it claimed implied rights over access route 5, which crossed the claimants’ land, to access the A1085. A 1971 conveyance made clear that there was a common intention that Redcar Quay would be built and operated as a quay. The court decided that a reasonable person would conclude that the parties to the conveyance intended that there should be road access to maintain and staff the quay, but this did not extend to loading or unloading which required road access. 3. South Bank, Teesport, which was otherwise landlocked save for access from the River Tees, where it claimed prescriptive rights over access route 1, a riverside road that connected the defendant’s land to the A66 and A1065 via the Tees Dock Road. The defendant failed to establish an express or implied right of way. However, the court concluded that it had established a prescriptive right of access and egress from Teesport across access route 1 for all purposes excluding haulage and for emergency access and egress from Teesport for all vehicles when the Tees Dock Road was impassable, in lost modern grant. Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator