LAND LAW PQ STRUCTURE – REGISTRATION OF TITLE:
5 Dimensions of Land:
1. Surface Features
• Includes natural and man-made features on the land – e.g., hedges, grass.
2. Uniqueness
• Land is inherently unique due to its fixed location – no two parcels are the same.
3. Strata – Above, On, and Below Land
• Property rights extend:
- Above the surface (airspace)
- On the surface (land itself
- Below the surface (subsoil and minerals)
à Legal Maxim – ‘he who owns the land owns everything reaching up to the heavens and down to the
depths’.
4. Corporeal & incorporeal Hereditaments
• Corporeal – tangible, physical aspects of the land (e.g., soil, buildings).
• Incorporeal – intangible rights derived from land (e.g., easements, right of way).
5. Legal Definition
àLPA 1925, s205(1)(ix) - “Land” includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals, whether or not
held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or
made in any other way) and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, and a rent and
other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from
land; and “mines and minerals” include any strata or seam of minerals or substances in or under any land,
and powers of working and getting the same ; […] and “hereditament” means any real property which on an
intestacy occurring before the commencement of this Act might have devolved upon an heir.
DIMENSION 3
FINDERS RIGHTS – Parker v. British Airways Board [1982]:
• P found a gold bracelet in BA executive lounge, handed it in and asked it to be returned to him if not
claimed. BA sold it when unclaimed, P sued.
HELD:
à Finder’s rights and obligations established by the courts:
1. No Right unless:
- Chattel is lost or abandoned, and
- Finder takes care and control of it.
2. Limited rights if:
- Finder acts dishonestly or trespasses.
- Parker was not dishonest or trespassing.
3. Finder acquires rights against all except:
- The true owner, or
- Someone with a prior right.
4. Finder must:
- Take reasonable steps to locate true owner
- Care for the item.
- Parker satisfied this by handing it into lost property.
à (judgement) – ‘an occupier of a building has rights superior to those of a finder of chattels in it, provided
he has manifested an intention to exercise control of things which may be there’.
BA’s Claim and Occupiers Rights:
à BA’s argument:
, - ‘claim is based upon the proposition that at common law an occupier of land has such rights over
all lost chattels which are on that land, whether or not the occupier knows of their existence’.
- BA needed to show they were the occupier and had a pre-existing intention to control lost items.
- They had an internal policy but did not publicise it – INSUFFICIENT.
à Occupiers Rights and Liabilities:
1. Superior rights over chattels:
- If chattels are in or attached to land/building.
- Bracelet was no attached – BA could not rely on this.
2. Rights over unattached items only if:
- Occupier has manifested intention to control the space and contents before item is found.
- BA failed – no visible signs or announcements.
3. Occupier must:
- Take reasonable steps to ensure lost items are found and returned to true owner.
OUTCOME:
• True owner never came forward, BA failed to establish superior rights.
- PARKER WON.
- Key issue – intention to control the area – parker handed it in (good faith); BA failed to manifest
control.
Test of intention – Waverly Borough Council v. Fletcher [1996]:
• WBC owned public park held for ‘pleasure and recreational uses’. F entered park with metal detector,
found gold brooch buried 9 inches below surface. Brooch handed to coroner but not deemed a treasure
trove so was returned to F. WBC later claimed ownership, arguing they had superior property rights.
HELD:
- COUNCIL HAD SUPERIOR RIGHT – brooch was embedded in the land, the
landowner/occupier has the better claim to items found in/attached to land.
FINDERS RIGHTS:
1. A finder acquires no rights over a chattel unless it has been lost or abandoned and the finder takes it
into their care and control.
- The brooch was considered lost or abandoned, F took control.
2. However, if the finder takes the item dishonestly or while trespassing, their rights are significantly
limited.
- Although no visible sign, the park had a byelaw prohibiting metal detecting. Court found that
using a metal detector was not part of the park’s permitted recreational use. F deemed a
trespasser and his conduct dishonest in context.
à (judgement) – ‘An object in land is to be treated as an integral part of the reality as against all but the
true owner’.
SUBSURFACE RIGHTS – Bocardo SA v. Star Energy UK Ltd [2010]:
• B owned surface land, S (neighbouring oil company) drilled diagonally beneath B’s land at depths
between 800-2,900 feet to extract petroleum. B sued for trespass.
HELD:
- B’S CLAIM SUCCEEDED – drilling into substrata = trespass.
à Per Lord Hope - ‘I think that the reasons for holding that the [maxim] has no place in the modern world
as regards what goes on below the surface, even in England, are not by any means as compelling as they are
in relation to the use of airspace.’
- Land ownership extends downward unless alienated (e.g., by statute).
- Possession/right to possession of subsurface strata is sufficient to sue for trespass.
- No defence under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 – the right to extract oil does not
authorise interference with private land.
à Per Lord Hope – ‘B’s title did extend down to the strata below the surface through which the wells
passed. The owner of the surface of land was the owner of the strata beneath it, including the minerals that
were found to be there, unless there had been alienation of them by a conveyance, at common law or by
statute to someone else’.
5 Dimensions of Land:
1. Surface Features
• Includes natural and man-made features on the land – e.g., hedges, grass.
2. Uniqueness
• Land is inherently unique due to its fixed location – no two parcels are the same.
3. Strata – Above, On, and Below Land
• Property rights extend:
- Above the surface (airspace)
- On the surface (land itself
- Below the surface (subsoil and minerals)
à Legal Maxim – ‘he who owns the land owns everything reaching up to the heavens and down to the
depths’.
4. Corporeal & incorporeal Hereditaments
• Corporeal – tangible, physical aspects of the land (e.g., soil, buildings).
• Incorporeal – intangible rights derived from land (e.g., easements, right of way).
5. Legal Definition
àLPA 1925, s205(1)(ix) - “Land” includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals, whether or not
held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or
made in any other way) and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, and a rent and
other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from
land; and “mines and minerals” include any strata or seam of minerals or substances in or under any land,
and powers of working and getting the same ; […] and “hereditament” means any real property which on an
intestacy occurring before the commencement of this Act might have devolved upon an heir.
DIMENSION 3
FINDERS RIGHTS – Parker v. British Airways Board [1982]:
• P found a gold bracelet in BA executive lounge, handed it in and asked it to be returned to him if not
claimed. BA sold it when unclaimed, P sued.
HELD:
à Finder’s rights and obligations established by the courts:
1. No Right unless:
- Chattel is lost or abandoned, and
- Finder takes care and control of it.
2. Limited rights if:
- Finder acts dishonestly or trespasses.
- Parker was not dishonest or trespassing.
3. Finder acquires rights against all except:
- The true owner, or
- Someone with a prior right.
4. Finder must:
- Take reasonable steps to locate true owner
- Care for the item.
- Parker satisfied this by handing it into lost property.
à (judgement) – ‘an occupier of a building has rights superior to those of a finder of chattels in it, provided
he has manifested an intention to exercise control of things which may be there’.
BA’s Claim and Occupiers Rights:
à BA’s argument:
, - ‘claim is based upon the proposition that at common law an occupier of land has such rights over
all lost chattels which are on that land, whether or not the occupier knows of their existence’.
- BA needed to show they were the occupier and had a pre-existing intention to control lost items.
- They had an internal policy but did not publicise it – INSUFFICIENT.
à Occupiers Rights and Liabilities:
1. Superior rights over chattels:
- If chattels are in or attached to land/building.
- Bracelet was no attached – BA could not rely on this.
2. Rights over unattached items only if:
- Occupier has manifested intention to control the space and contents before item is found.
- BA failed – no visible signs or announcements.
3. Occupier must:
- Take reasonable steps to ensure lost items are found and returned to true owner.
OUTCOME:
• True owner never came forward, BA failed to establish superior rights.
- PARKER WON.
- Key issue – intention to control the area – parker handed it in (good faith); BA failed to manifest
control.
Test of intention – Waverly Borough Council v. Fletcher [1996]:
• WBC owned public park held for ‘pleasure and recreational uses’. F entered park with metal detector,
found gold brooch buried 9 inches below surface. Brooch handed to coroner but not deemed a treasure
trove so was returned to F. WBC later claimed ownership, arguing they had superior property rights.
HELD:
- COUNCIL HAD SUPERIOR RIGHT – brooch was embedded in the land, the
landowner/occupier has the better claim to items found in/attached to land.
FINDERS RIGHTS:
1. A finder acquires no rights over a chattel unless it has been lost or abandoned and the finder takes it
into their care and control.
- The brooch was considered lost or abandoned, F took control.
2. However, if the finder takes the item dishonestly or while trespassing, their rights are significantly
limited.
- Although no visible sign, the park had a byelaw prohibiting metal detecting. Court found that
using a metal detector was not part of the park’s permitted recreational use. F deemed a
trespasser and his conduct dishonest in context.
à (judgement) – ‘An object in land is to be treated as an integral part of the reality as against all but the
true owner’.
SUBSURFACE RIGHTS – Bocardo SA v. Star Energy UK Ltd [2010]:
• B owned surface land, S (neighbouring oil company) drilled diagonally beneath B’s land at depths
between 800-2,900 feet to extract petroleum. B sued for trespass.
HELD:
- B’S CLAIM SUCCEEDED – drilling into substrata = trespass.
à Per Lord Hope - ‘I think that the reasons for holding that the [maxim] has no place in the modern world
as regards what goes on below the surface, even in England, are not by any means as compelling as they are
in relation to the use of airspace.’
- Land ownership extends downward unless alienated (e.g., by statute).
- Possession/right to possession of subsurface strata is sufficient to sue for trespass.
- No defence under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 – the right to extract oil does not
authorise interference with private land.
à Per Lord Hope – ‘B’s title did extend down to the strata below the surface through which the wells
passed. The owner of the surface of land was the owner of the strata beneath it, including the minerals that
were found to be there, unless there had been alienation of them by a conveyance, at common law or by
statute to someone else’.
