Lol did ur lecturer actually put the Latin phrase in there?

Advantages/disadvantages. But more importantly whether its reflected in case law. Is this statement actually the case? Has it bee challenged? The role of this statement in the fixtures and Chanel debate etc

Reply 4

Nightwish1234

13

Original post by RatherBeAnon

Our essay question is

Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos'
Discuss the merits or otherwise of this statement. In particular, in relation to
the fixtures and chattels debate.

By ‘discuss the merits or otherwise of this statement’ does it mean the advantages and disadvantages of the statement?

The statement can be found in case law in Edwards v Sims (1929), where Stanley J said, “the owner of realty, unless there has been a division of the estate, is entitled to the free and unfettered control of his own land above, upon and beneath the surface”. Have a look into my comments - it is a fairly contentious area and this is just my take on it (which my property tutor in second year disagreed with in part). In my opinion, it would be untrue to suggest that one has unlimited control to their land, despite the starting point of the ad coelum maxim, stemming from Crown being the true owner of all land.This area of law is largely decided on a case by case basis, as the courts have not clearly defined the upper or lower boundaries.

Land above the ground
This Latin maxim (often shortened to ad coelum) falls into disfavour with with air and space travel, requiring limitations owing to policy considerations. The doctrine here is a starting point, but doesn't extend farther than 'necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures upon it’. This is not restricted to current use, and extends to future or potential use. As a result, the current position is that you own the airspace in the ‘lower stratum’, although the courts have not yet precisely defined this. Statute suggests this to be approximately 500 to 1,000 feet, with the area above being a ‘public highway’. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to suggest one has ‘free and unfettered’ access to the space above their land, rather your enjoyment of the land, future or current, will not be infringed

Land upon the surface (probably what you are after if they flag up fixtures?)
You do not have outright ownership of everything on the surface of the land; the ‘estate’ only conveys certain rights. Whilst you will own wild and cultivated trees, plants, and fruit growing on your land, you only have ‘qualified property rights’ to hunt wild animals. If there is a body of water running through your land, you are entitled to use it, but cannot impede the flow of water onto other people’s land. If the body of water of water is navigable, the land beneath it belongs to the Crown. Furthermore, you will also often be bound by duties to others, such as those under the Occupiers Liability Act. Therefore, like the land above the surface, whilst one is free to use their own land in a reasonable manner, one does not have complete ownership, and it is subject to a number of limitations.

Land under the surface
The ad coelum maxim sits most comfortably with underground land, as the courts have yet to enforce a limit as to where ownership ends. Whilst in theory one may dig as far down as they want, practically it will not extend to the other side of the Earth due to the magma layer. In situations where an underground feature runs into a neighbouring land, the benefit will be shared proportionately to the area under your property. This reinforces the idea that you own anything below your property, as you need not even have access to it

Edited for typos

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 5

Catherine1973

20

we didn't study it, but isn't there a treasure trove rule, certain stuff you find will belong to the crown? can't recall if that means on your land, or found on someone elses land though.

Reply 6

RatherBeAnon

OP

4

Original post by Nightwish1234

The statement can be found in case law in Edwards v Sims (1929), where Stanley J said, “the owner of realty, unless there has been a division of the estate, is entitled to the free and unfettered control of his own land above, upon and beneath the surface”. Have a look into my comments - it is a fairly contentious area and this is just my take on it (which my property tutor in second year disagreed with in part). In my opinion, it would be untrue to suggest that one has unlimited control to their land, despite the starting point of the ad coelum maxim, stemming from Crown being the true owner of all land.This area of law is largely decided on a case by case basis, as the courts have not clearly defined the upper or lower boundaries.

Land above the ground
This Latin maxim (often shortened to ad coelum) falls into disfavour with with air and space travel, requiring limitations owing to policy considerations. The doctrine here is a starting point, but doesn't extend farther than 'necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures upon it’. This is not restricted to current use, and extends to future or potential use. As a result, the current position is that you own the airspace in the ‘lower stratum’, although the courts have not yet precisely defined this. Statute suggests this to be approximately 500 to 1,000 feet, with the area above being a ‘public highway’. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to suggest one has ‘free and unfettered’ access to the space above their land, rather your enjoyment of the land, future or current, will not be infringed

Land upon the surface (probably what you are after if they flag up fixtures?)
You do not have outright ownership of everything on the surface of the land; the ‘estate’ only conveys certain rights. Whilst you will own wild and cultivated trees, plants, and fruit growing on your land, you only have ‘qualified property rights’ to hunt wild animals. If there is a body of water running through your land, you are entitled to use it, but cannot impede the flow of water onto other people’s land. If the body of water of water is navigable, the land beneath it belongs to the Crown. Furthermore, you will also often be bound by duties to others, such as those under the Occupiers Liability Act. Therefore, like the land above the surface, whilst one is free to use their own land in a reasonable manner, one does not have complete ownership, and it is subject to a number of limitations.

Land under the surface
The ad coelum maxim sits most comfortably with underground land, as the courts have yet to enforce a limit as to where ownership ends. Whilst in theory one may dig as far down as they want, practically it will not extend to the other side of the Earth due to the magma layer. In situations where an underground feature runs into a neighbouring land, the benefit will be shared proportionately to the area under your property. This reinforces the idea that you own anything below your property, as you need not even have access to it

Edited for typos

Thank you so much, this has been helpful!

Reply 7

Nightwish1234

13

Original post by Catherine1973

we didn't study it, but isn't there a treasure trove rule, certain stuff you find will belong to the crown? can't recall if that means on your land, or found on someone elses land though.

You had Waverly v Fletcher where a brooch was found in the ground of a park, and it was held that the Council had a greater right than the finder. Might this be the case you are thinking of? It was reasoned that the council had possession before the digger, as they had possession of the land and everything in it, moreover the public was not invited to dig.