Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1977 |
| Year | 1977 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Trespass - Air space - Aerial photography - Landowner's rights in airspace above property - Whether flight over properly for purpose of photography trespass and/or invasion of privacy - Application of statutory protection -
The defendants flew over the plaintiff's land for the purpose of taking an aerial photograph of the plaintiff's country house which they then offered to sell to him. The plaintiff claimed damages, alleging that by entering the airspace above his property in order to take aerial photographs the defendants were guilty of trespass, and/or were guilty of an actionable invasion of the plaintiff's right to privacy by taking the photograph without his consent or authorisation: —
Held, giving judgment for the defendants, that an owner's rights in the airspace above his land were restricted to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures upon it, and above that height he had no greater rights than any other member of the public; that, accordingly, the defendants' aircraft did not infringe any rights in the plaintiff's airspace and thus did not commit any trespass by flying over land for the purpose of taking a photograph (post, p. 141F–H).
Per curiam. The protection given by section 40 (1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 extends to all flights which are at a reasonable height and comply with the statutory requirements (post, p. 142H).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Commissioner for Railways v. Valuer-General [
Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co. (
Gifford v. Dent [
Kelsen v. Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain and Ireland) Ltd. [
Lemmon v. Webb [
Pickering v. Rudd (
Saunders v. Smith (
Sovmots Investments Ltd. v. Secretary of State for the Environment [
Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephones Co. Ltd. (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Hickman v. Maisey [
Kenyon v. Hart (
Roedean School Ltd. v. Cornwall Aviation, The Times, July 3, 1926.
Woollerton and Wilson Ltd. v. Richard Costain Ltd. [
ACTION
By a writ dated June 26, 1975, the plaintiff, Sidney Lewis, Baron Bernstein of Leigh, alleged that the defendants, Skyviews & General Ltd., aerial photographers, were guilty of trespass in that on a date late in 1974 they, their servants or agents, wrongfully entered the airspace above the plaintiff's premises, Coppings Farm, Leigh, Kent, in order to take aerial photographs of the plaintiff's residence; further or alternatively the plaintiff alleged that the taking of the aerial photographs of the plaintiff's home without his consent or authorisation constituted an actionable invasion of the plaintiff's right to privacy. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass and/or invasion of the plaintiff's right to privacy; an injunction to restrain the defendants from entering the plaintiff's premises or the airspace above them; an injunction to restrain the defendants from invading the plaintiff's right to privacy by taking unauthorised aerial photographs of his home or otherwise; an order for the immediate delivery up, alternatively the destruction, of all negatives and prints of the photographs.
By their defence the defendants admitted that they took aerial photographs of the plaintiff's premises but denied entering the airspace above the premises to do so; alternatively, they claimed that if they did enter the airspace above the plaintiff's premises such entry was by the leave of the plaintiff; further and in the alternative, they claimed the protection of section 40 (1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Charles Gray for the plaintiff.
L. D. Lawton Q.C. and Gerald Lumley for the defendants.
February 10. GRIFFITHS J. read the following judgment. On August 3, 1974, the defendants took a single aerial photograph of Lord Bernstein's country house in Kent. It was one of many thousands of such photographs that the defendants have taken over the course of the last 17 years for their business is to take aerial photographs of properties of all types and then to offer them for sale to the owners. They offered to sell Lord Bernstein the photograph that they had taken of his house, but Lord Bernstein took strong exception to their behaviour. He wrote to complain that photographing his house without his permission was a gross invasion of privacy and demanded that they hand over or destroy all negatives and prints of his house. Unfortunately Lord Bernstein's letter was not seen by Mr. Ashby, the managing director of the defendants, who are a small family company. If he had seen it he tells me that he would have immediately undertaken to destroy the negative and promised never to take another photograph of Lord Bernstein's property. The last thing Mr. Ashby wishes is to give offence and he says that apart from one complaint of low flying this is the first time that an owner has complained about his property being photographed. If only Mr. Ashby had seen the letter I have no doubt he would have done as he said and that would have been the end of the matter. But he did not see the letter, and it was in fact answered by a young lady of 18 who had only recently joined the defendants. She wrote thanking Lord Bernstein for his letter and offering to sell him the negative for £15. It was a very polite letter to write to someone wanting to buy a photograph, but it was a most inappropriate letter to write to Lord Bernstein. It naturally gave offence and Lord Bernstein went to his solicitors. They wrote to the defendants on March 12, 1975, complaining of the effrontery to offer to sell the negative and alleging that the defendants had trespassed into Lord Bernstein's air space and thus invaded his privacy. They called upon the defendants to deliver up the negatives and prints, to undertake not to infringe Lord Bernstein's rights again and to apologise. Here was another chance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lorna Grace Peires v Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd
...62 above have been duly complied with……." 93 The statutory protection extends to all flights not just those passing from A to B see Bernstein v Skyviews [1978] QB 479 at 489 (on the predecessor act CAA 1949). The protection extends to any consequence which may flow from the flight of an air......
-
Michael Noel James Hosking and Marie Angela Hosking v Simon Runting and
...towards the plaintiff here was “a monstrous invasion of his privacy” (to adopt the language of Griffiths J in Bernstein v Skyviews Ltd [1978] QB 479 at 489G). If ever a person has a right to be let alone by strangers with no public interest to pursue, it must surely be when he lies in hospi......
-
Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd
...flight has made it impossible to apply the brocard usque ad coelum literally. In Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479 Baron Bernstein failed in his claim that the defendants, who had flown over his land to take an aerial photograph of his property which they th......
-
Giles Duncan Fearn v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
...145 Nor does Mr Weekes get much positive support from his next authority, which is Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] 1 QB 479, in which Griffiths J refused a claim for trespass by an overflying aircraft taking aerial photographs, while acknowledging that might be ar......
-
Are Australian privacy laws ready for drones?
...ordinarily audible to the human ear" 4 Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), s3. 5 Ibid, s6(2)(e) 6 Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479 7 Bury v Pope (1586) Cro Eliz 118; 78 ER 375. 8 Above n6, 488. 9 Ibid. 10 Raciti v Hughes (1995) 7 BPR 14,837. 11 Above n2, 489. 12 Ward, Lo......
-
Rise of the drones: Opportunity and liability for businesses
...of the land, it does not 'extend to the heavens'. For example in the United Kingdom case of Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479, an aircraft flying over a property and taking a photograph was not trespass. In Australia, there is limited legislative recourse, with the privac......
-
Imposing statutory rights of use in Queensland: When is a refusal to grant unreasonable?
...[2016] QCA 20. 6 [2010] QSC 399. 7 Graham v KD Morris & Sons Pty Ltd [1974] Qd R 1. 8 Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479, 9 De Napoli v New Beach Apartments Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 52. 10 Re Roobottom & Anor, [1998] QSC (unreported). 11 Above n 2 at [26]. 12 Ibid at [......
-
The site
...has no right to be where he is”: Richardson v DPP [2014] aC 635 at 641 [3], per Lord hughes JSC. 388 Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479; Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLr 1 at [638], per Callinan J; J&D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd [2013] QCa 406 at [15], pe......
-
Table of Cases
...643, 11 Sask LR 46 (CA) ................................................................ 279 Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd, [1978] QB 479 .............. 36, 38, 235 Berrisford v Mexield Housing Co-operative Ltd, [2011] UKSC 52, [2012] 1 AC 955 .......................................
-
Table of Cases
...2012 ONSC 5762 ...................................................149, 169 Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v. Skyviews & General Ltd. (1977), [1978] Q.B. 479, [1977] 3 W.L.R. 136, [1977] 2 All E.R. 902 ...................... 208 Beswick v. Beswick (1967), [1968] A.C. 58, [1967] 3 W.L.R. 932, [19......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...2 KB 368 (deliberate firing of guns to cause vixens to abort). 98 Supra n 57. 99 Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KB 141; Bernstein v Skyviews[1978] QB 479. 100 Supra n 70. 101 [1985] 2 All ER 1 at 24 (Ch D). 102 Supra n 57 at 738. 103 Supra n 87 at 206; Khorasandjian, Ibid at 743. 104 Khorasandjia......