The plaintiff complained that the defendant had flown over his and neighbouring properties and taken aerial photographs, and said that this was a gross invasion of his privacy, and that the defendant had invaded his airspace to do so. The plaintiff relied on the maxim: Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (whose is the soil his is also that which is above and below it).
Held: The claim failed. If the latin maxim were applied literally it would lead to the absurdity of trespass being committed every time a satellite passed over a suburban garden. The problem in this case was to balance the rights of a landowner to enjoy the use of his land against the rights of the general public to take advantage of all that science now offered in the use of airspace. The best way to strike that balance in our present society was to restrict the rights of an owner in the airspace above his land to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and to declare that above that height he had no greater rights in the airspace than any other member of the public.
Griffiths J
[1977] EWHC QB 1, [1977] 3 WLR 136, [1977] 241 EG 917, [1977] 2 All ER 902, [1978] QB 479
Bailii
Civil Aviation Act 1949 40
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wandsworth Board of Works v United Telephone Co CA 1884
A land-owner had the right to cut a wire wrongfully placed over his property. . .
Cited – Gifford v Dent 1926
It was a trespass over the plaintiff’s land for the defendant to erect a sign projecting 4 ft 8 in over the plaintiff’s forecourt. . .
Cited – Pickering v Rudd KBD 20-Jun-1815
Trespass into Air Space
The plaintiff had erected a board which extended over into his neighbour’s garden. The neighbour cut that down and a tree grown against his wall.
Held: Lord Ellenborough said: ‘I do not think it is a trespass to interfere with the column of . .
Cited – Commissioner for Railways v Valuer-General PC 1974
(New South Wales – Court of Appeal) The parties disputed the value of a property in the centre of Sydney beneath which there had been extensive excavations to a depth of 40 feet or more. The question was how the property was to be valued for rating . .
Cited – Kelson v Imperial Tobacco Company 1957
The defendant erected a sign which extended some 8ft into the plaintiff’s property.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove the sign. The intrusion was a trespass. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Cited – Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd v Berisworth Ltd ChD 27-Feb-2008
Tenants asserted a right of first refusal under the 1987 Act on a proposed disposal of the freehold. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Land
Leading Case
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.245443
