Bernstein v. Skyviews and General Ltd.
Rule established
Landowner airspace rights extend only to the height reasonably necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land, not to an unlimited vertical extent.
Facts
- The defendant's aircraft flew over the plaintiff's property at a substantial altitude to take an aerial photograph for commercial sale. The plaintiff had not consented to this overflight and sued for trespass to his airspace. The aircraft's altitude was well above what was relevant to the plaintiff's actual use of his land and any structures on it.
Issue
- Whether an aircraft flying over private property at a considerable height constitutes trespass to the landowner's airspace.
Held
- A landowner's rights over airspace are not unlimited, extending indefinitely upward. These rights extend only to such height as is reasonably necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures on it. The aircraft's altitude exceeded any height relevant to the plaintiff's actual use and enjoyment. No trespass occurred.
Ratio Decidendi
Landowner airspace rights are confined to the height reasonably necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment of the land, not an unlimited vertical extent. Aircraft flying at a height well above this practical threshold do not commit trespass merely by passing overhead.
How to use it in an exam
- Key line: "In Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd (1978), the court held that landowner airspace rights extend only to the height reasonably necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment, not an unlimited vertical extent."
- Use to establish the practical boundary of trespass claims involving overflight, particularly relevant to modern drone-related disputes at lower altitudes.
Source
Source: [1978] QB 479
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Law of TortsTrespass to LandEstablishes that landowner airspace rights are confined to height reasonably necessary for use and enjoyment