Bernstein v Skyviews [1978] QB 479

Court: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division

Facts: Skyviews and General Ltd (S) took aerial photographs of several houses, including Coppings Farm, the country home of Bernstein (B). S later offered to sell one of these photographs to B. Bernstein, however, claimed damages for trespass onto his airspace and, alternatively, invasion of privacy. He argued that S entered the airspace above his property without his consent to take the photograph, thereby infringing on his property rights.

Issue: Does a landowner have rights over the airspace above their property, and can they claim trespass or invasion of privacy for activities occurring in that airspace?

Held: The court ruled in favor of Skyviews and General Ltd, holding that there was no trespass. The court found that a landowner's rights to airspace are limited to the height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and its structures. The Latin maxim “cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos” (whoever owns the soil owns everything up to heaven and down to hell) could not be taken literally in this case. Since the aerial photograph was taken from a height far above what was necessary for the ordinary use of the land, Bernstein had no claim of trespass or invasion of privacy. The court noted that taking the maxim literally would lead to absurd results, such as deeming satellites or commercial airplanes as trespassing. Therefore, above the necessary height for the land's enjoyment, a landowner has no greater rights to airspace than any member of the public.

Key Judicial Statements: Griffiths J remarked that the ruling balanced the rights of private landowners with the interests of the public in using airspace. The rights of landowners are confined to what is necessary for their use of the land, and beyond that, no greater claim exists.

💡 Leveluplaw: A landowner's rights to airspace are limited to the height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of their land. Activities above that height do not constitute trespass or invasion of privacy.