The case of Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd [1978] QB 479 is an important decision in English law that clarifies the extent of a landowner’s rights in the airspace above their property. In Bernstein v Skyviews, the court addressed whether taking aerial photographs of private property amounts to trespass or invasion of privacy.
The judgment in Bernstein v Skyviews established a practical limitation on property rights in airspace and rejected the idea that such rights extend indefinitely upwards. As a result, Bernstein v Skyviews continues to be a key authority in understanding how the law balances private property rights with public use of airspace.
Facts of Bernstein v Skyviews Case
In Bernstein v Skyviews, the defendant company, Skyviews and General Ltd, took aerial photographs of various properties, including Coppings Farm, which belonged to the claimant, Bernstein. These photographs were taken from an aircraft flying above the property. After taking the photograph, the defendant offered to sell it to the claimant.
The claimant objected to this act and brought a claim against the defendant. He argued that the act of taking photographs from the airspace above his land constituted trespass. In addition, he claimed that his privacy had been invaded because the photograph was taken without his consent.
The central contention in Bernstein v Skyviews was that the defendant had entered the airspace above the claimant’s property and interfered with his rights as a landowner. The claimant sought damages on the basis of trespass and, alternatively, invasion of privacy.
Legal Issue
The main issue in Bernstein v Skyviews was whether a landowner has rights over the airspace above their land to such an extent that any unauthorised intrusion into that airspace amounts to trespass. Closely linked to this was the question of whether a landowner has a right to privacy in respect of that airspace.
In simple terms, the court had to determine whether the defendant’s act of flying over the claimant’s land and taking photographs was unlawful. The issue in Bernstein v Skyviews therefore focused on the extent of ownership rights in airspace and whether those rights include a legally protected interest in privacy.
Bernstein v Skyviews Judgment
The court in Bernstein v Skyviews held that there had been no trespass. It concluded that a landowner’s rights in the airspace above their land are not unlimited. Instead, such rights extend only to the height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and any structures upon it.
The court rejected the claimant’s argument that the defendant had unlawfully entered his airspace. It found that the aircraft had flown at a height beyond what could reasonably be considered part of the claimant’s usable airspace. As a result, there was no interference with the claimant’s rights.
In addition, the court held that there was no recognised right to privacy in the airspace above one’s property. Therefore, the act of taking an aerial photograph did not amount to an invasion of privacy in law.
Reasoning of the Court in Bernstein v Skyviews
The reasoning in Bernstein v Skyviews focused on practicality and the need to balance private property rights with the interests of the wider public. The court emphasised that modern society depends on the use of airspace for aviation and other purposes. If landowners were given absolute rights over all airspace above their land, it would severely disrupt these activities.
The court also noted that the claimant had not demonstrated any interference with his ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. The aircraft had not flown at a low altitude or caused any direct disturbance. Therefore, there was no basis for a claim in trespass.
In rejecting the privacy claim, the court in Bernstein v Skyviews highlighted that English law, at the time, did not provide a general right to privacy. As a result, the mere act of taking a photograph from the air did not give rise to a legal claim.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Bernstein v Skyviews is a leading case on the extent of airspace rights and the concept of trespass. The court held that a landowner’s rights in airspace are limited to what is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. It also confirmed that there is no general right to privacy in relation to airspace.
