Legal Case Summary
Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd  QB 479
Trespass – No right of privacy in airspace
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.
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.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
Related ContentJurisdictions / Tags
Content relating to: "UK Law"
UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.
Differences Between Examination-in-chief and Cross-examination
Advocacy - Differences between examination-in-chief and cross-examination. With examination in chief the witness is allowed to tell their side of the story. In cross-examination you do not want the witness to tell the story. You indicate the point you wish to make and put it to the......
Antonaides v Villiers 
Occupiers signed agreement expressly stated to be a license; whether agreement a sham. Mr Villiers and his partner signed separate but identical agreements to occupy a one bedroom flat owned by Mr Antonaides, where they would live as husband and wife....