Legal Case Summary
Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd [1978] QB 479
Trespass – No right of privacy in airspace
Facts
Skyviews and General Ltd (S) took an aerial photograph a number of houses, including Coppings Farm, Bernstein’s (B) country home. S then purported to sell the photograph to B. B claimed damages for trespass onto his airspace and, or alternatively, invasion of privacy for entering the air space above his property and taking the photograph without his consent.
Issue
The issue in question was whether a person has the right to privacy in airspace.
Decision / Outcome
There was no trespass. An owner of land has rights in the air space above his land only to such a height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it. B had no right to privacy in airspace and accordingly there had been no infringement of B’s rights in the airspace above his property. It would be absurd to take the latin maxim cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (whoever owns the soil it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell) literally as it would mean that any time a satellite passed overhead it would be trespassing. A property owner’s rights in this case must therefore restricted to such height as is 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.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd [1978] QB 479. The legal principle established — that a landowner’s rights in airspace extend only to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures upon it — remains good law in England and Wales and continues to be cited in property law contexts.
Readers should be aware of subsequent developments in the broader area of airspace and land rights. In Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] UKSC 35, the Supreme Court confirmed the cuius est solum maxim as it applies to subterranean rights, while implicitly leaving the Bernstein limitation on airspace rights intact. Additionally, the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (particularly section 76) provides a statutory framework governing liability for damage caused by aircraft, which complements rather than displaces the common law position in Bernstein. The article’s brief treatment of the privacy dimension should also be read alongside the significant development of privacy law since 1978 — notably through the Human Rights Act 1998 and the tort of misuse of private information — though those developments do not affect the core airspace trespass principle this case establishes. The summary remains accurate for its stated purpose.
