That was the view of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [1914] 1 Ch. Posted by Anthony November 25, 2020 To what extent can it be said that the decisions in Bocardo v Star Energy 2010 UKSC 35 and Elitestone v Morris 1997 IWLR 687 were accurate interpretations of … Corporate, Partnership & Personal Insolvency, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. Pointe Gourde Quarrying & Transport Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] A.C. 565. B claimed in trespass for damages. How have these cases lead to further developments in the law? The appellant landowner (B) appealed against the quantum of damages awarded to it following a decision ([2009] EWCA Civ 579, [2010] Ch. Ordinary compulsory purchase principles applied to the assessment of compensation under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 s.8(2). The works involved in this case … The words "interfere with" were not restricted to interfering with the owner's use and enjoyment of the land for the time being. The owner of the surface of land was the owner of the strata beneath it, including the minerals that were to be found there, unless there had been an alienation of them by a conveyance, at common law or by statute to someone else. Property law 1 Bocardo SA v Star Energy Onshore UK Ltd (full case note) On 28 July the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of B ocardo SA v Star Energy [2010] UKSC 35. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bocardo SA v Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd [2010] UKSC 35, Supreme Court. Bocardo v Star Energy (2009) "extent" below land. How have these cases lead to further developments […] In the instant case, the construction of wells by an oil company at a depth of 800 to 2,900 feet beneath the surface of land was a trespass actionable at the suit of the landowner. But the wells in this case were far from being so deep as to reach the point of absurdity; indeed, the fact that the strata could be worked upon at the depths in question pointed to the opposite conclusion. PRESS SUMMARY Star Energy Weald Basin Limited and another (Respondents) v Bocardo SA (Appellant) [2010] UKSC 35 On appeal from [2008] EWCA Civ 579 JUSTICES: Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Collins, Lord Clarke BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL The appellant, Bocardo, is the freehold owner of the Oxsted Estate, Surrey. (2) (Per Lord Hope) Possession or a right to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass. The leading case on the issue of drilling is the Supreme Court decision of Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010]. The post To what extent can it be said that the decisions in Bocardo v Star Energy 2010 UKSC 35 and Elitestone v Morris 1997 IWLR 687 were accurate interpretations of the common law definitions of land. There had obviously to be some stopping point, as one reached the point at which physical features such as pressure and temperature rendered the concept of the strata belonging to anybody so absurd as to be not worth arguing about. Bocardo’s claim for damages arose from the fact that an oil company had, without Bocardo’s knowledge or consent, drilled a well from their own land through Bocardo’s land to access an oil deposit under Bocardo’s estate at Oxted in Surrey. How have these cases lead to further developments in … Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. . Its predecessors had drilled three wells diagonally. The words "interfere with" were not restricted to interfering with the owner's use and enjoyment of the land for the time being. 4. Edwards v Lee (of which it has echoes), Wrotham Park, Stoke v Wass and WWF are all mentioned. Supreme Court hands down Star Energy v Bocardo SA judgment. 29 Thursday Jul 2010 (4) (Per Lord Brown) For the purpose of assessing damages, it was necessary to determine the proper compensation payable by S to secure its right to install deviated wells beneath B's land had it sought to enforce that right pursuant to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966. His right to object was inherent in his right of ownership of the land, and it was irrelevant that he was not making any use of it. On 28 July the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Bocardo SA v Star Energy [2010] UKSC 35. The Court held that a landowner owns all substrata which lie beneath his property up to a undefined depth where the notion of ownership becomes absurd. This case cites: At First Instance – Bocardo Sa v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and Another ChD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch), [2008] 2 P and CR 23, [2009] 1 All ER 517, [2008] NPC 99, [2008] 30 EG 83) The defendant had obtained a licence under the Act to extract oil from beneath its land. Bocardo v Star Energy (2009) ... case based upon individual facts and created the list. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × In the case of Bocardo SA v. Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] it was said that the landowner can bring an action in trespass if pipes etc., even at great depths, become intrusive to their property. The case considered important questions as to the measure of damages for trespass on the “wayleave” or “user” basis, the construction of petroleum and mining and minerals legislation, and the application of compulsory purchase principles and the “Pointe Gourde” rule. (Lord Clarke dissenting, and Lord Hope dissenting in part, on the fourth issue) (1) (Per Lord Hope) B's title did extend down to the strata below the surface through which the wells passed. It now . Bocardo issued trespass proceedings against Star Energy. The owner of the surface of land was the owner of the strata beneath it, including the minerals that were to be found there, unless there had been an alienation of them by a conveyance, at common law or by statute to someone else. Jonathan Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for Bocardo SA. His right to object was inherent in his right of ownership of the land, and it was irrelevant that he was not making any use of it. Bocardo is the first modern case to consider how far beneath the surface a landowner’s title to land extends, and whether the landowner can sue for trespass for underground incursions into the sub-soil and sub-strata. Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and another 124 Case Comment: Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and another CALUM STACEY ∗ Abstract The intention of this paper is to analyse the decision and possible consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and another.1 While this is an English case, the case is of relevance particularly to oil and … The case may also have important implications for telecommunications operators and landowners from whom they wish to acquire wayleaves, given the similarities between the wording of the Telecommunications Code and the relevant mining legislation. For any of you who are not aware of this case, it essentially concerned the calculation of compensation for extracting oil from the substrata of an estate where the estate owner had not granted access rights for that Note 1. Further, B, as the paper owner, was entitled to possession of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair. Bocardo SA v Star Energy: Supreme Court decision on underground trespass  The owner of the surface of land was the owner of the strata beneath it, including the minerals that were to be found there, unless there had been an alienation of them by a conveyance, at common law or by statute to someone else. S cross-appealed on the issue of trespass. Please write a 2,000 word essay to answer the following question: To what extent can it be said that the decisions in Bocardo v Star Energy 2010 UKSC 35 and Elitestone v Morris 1997 IWLR 687 were accurate interpretations of the common law definitions of land. Case: Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd & anor v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35 In the context of a statute which was concerned with the right to search for, bore for and get petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata below ground, the words "enter on" were apt to apply to underground workings as well as workings on the surface itself. There was nothing in s.10(3) of the 1934 Act (re-enacted in the, ) or the context in which it was enacted that restricted the reference to "land" in that subsection to things that happened only on the surface. There had obviously to be some stopping point, as one reached the point at which physical features such as pressure and temperature rendered the concept of the strata belonging to anybody so absurd as to be not worth arguing about. Its predecessors had drilled three wells diagonally. (4) (Per Lord Brown) For the purpose of assessing damages, it was necessary to determine the proper compensation payable by S to secure its right to install deviated wells beneath B's land had it sought to enforce that right pursuant to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966. Bocardo was unaware until July 2006 that petroleum and petroleum gas was being extracted by this means from beneath its land. On 28 July the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Bocardo SA v Star Energy [2010] UKSC 35. Ultimately in 2004 Star Onshore declined Bocardo's proposals stating that its financial covenants prevented it from entering into any joint venture with Bocardo to search for oil beneath the Oxted Estate. That was the view of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [1914] 1 Ch. Bocardo SA v Star Energy and another [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D); [2008] WLR (D) 258 “Access to land to remove oil vested in the Crown from beneath the subsoil, without obtaining ac… 438. In that case Star Energy attempted to drill for oil on Bocarda’s land without their permission. (3) (Per Lord Hope) S had no defence to the claim in trespass. (2) (Per Lord Hope) Possession or a right to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass. 29 Thursday Jul 2010 The deepest terminated at some 2,900 feet below ground level. Barristers regulated by The Bar Standards Board Further, B, as the paper owner, was entitled to possession of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed. It is the use of this technique which gave rise to the proceedings in the case of Bocardo SA v Star Energy Onshore Limited. Supreme Court hands down Star Energy v Bocardo SA judgment. In the context of a statute which was concerned with the right to search for, bore for and get petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata below ground, the words "enter on" were apt to apply to underground workings as well as workings on the surface itself. Site by Sears Davies the sub-soil and sub-strata. Assessment Task Write a 2,000 word essay to answer the following question: To what extent can it be said that the decisions in Bocardo v Star Energy 2010 UKSC 35 and Elitestone v Morris 1997 IWLR 687 were accurate interpretations of the common law definitions of land. (Lord Clarke dissenting, and Lord Hope dissenting in part, on the fourth issue) (1) (Per Lord Hope) B's title did extend down to the strata below the surface through which the wells passed. 438. It is Bocardo's case that at this time it had no idea that the oil had already been extracted by wells drilled over 10 years earlier. The principles, including the principle established in. ... On 21 July 2006 Bocardo commenced proceedings against Star for trespass. Star v Bocardo (2009) Summary Michael Driscoll QC and Ciaran Keller, who did not appear below, appeared for the successful appellants, Star Energy, in a landmark decision in the Court of Appeal against Mr Al Fayad’s company Bocardo SA. The owner of the subsurface was entitled to say that his land was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else. Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] UKSC 35 is a UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas. Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] 1 AC 380 – licence to explore and obtain for oil 800 – 2000 feet below surface. 100) that the respondent oil company (S) had committed an actionable trespass. Note 1. S had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum. Bocardo is the first modern case to consider how far beneath the surface a landowner’s title to land extends, and whether the landowner can sue for trespass for underground incursions into the sub-soil and sub-strata. In Bocardo SA v Star Energy Onshore Ltd [2010] UKSC 35; [2010] 3 WLR 654, Lord Hope maintained that the phrase “still has value in English law as encapsulating, in simple language, a proposition of law which has commanded general acceptance.” Bocardo is the. Jonathan Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for Bo cardo SA. Decisions in Bocardo v Star Energy. This case highlighted that a landowner only possesses rights to the subterranean directly belong his property. They entered the substrata below land owned by B at substantial depths beneath the surface. The respondent, Star Energy Weald Basin, was an oil exploration company which had been drilling in the Palmers Wood Oil Field, whose north-east part extended under the land of the appellant, Bocardo. It held a landowner also owned the strata and minerals, unless they conveyed it, in common law or statute, to someone else, so an oil company making wells 800 to 2900 feet below the surface was trespass, and had to pay compulsory purchase compensation under the Mines (Working … The principles, including the principle established in Pointe Gourde Quarrying & Transport Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] A.C. 565, ordinarily governing the approach to valuation in the field of compulsory land purchase applied equally to the construction and application of s.8(2) of the 1966 Act in respect of the compulsory acquisition of ancillary rights over or under land, Pointe Gourde applied. Essential Cases: Land Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The owner of the subsurface was entitled to say that his land was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else. Further, they operated to deny B what would otherwise be regarded as the powerful bargaining position of a landowner able to control access to a valuable oilfield partially sited beneath its land. Bocardo SA v Star Energy Ltd (2010) Summary The owner of the surface of land was the owner of the strata beneath it, including the minerals that were to be found there, unless there had been an alienation of them by a conveyance, at common law or by statute to someone else. Star Energy held such an exclusive licence to an area that included lands underlying Bocardo s farm. Bothan V TSB plc (1997) held pictures and statute was a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures. Held: need consent from surface owners Infrastructure Act 2015 ss.43-48 – exploitation of deep level land ok. for petroleum or geothermal energy (300m+) Bocardo SA v Start Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] 1 AC 380 (3) (Per Lord Hope) S had no defence to the claim in trespass.   FalconChambers1. The issues that this case raises fall into two parts. The Assessment Task . Description . There was nothing in s.10(3) of the 1934 Act (re-enacted in the Petroleum Act 1998 s.9(2)) or the context in which it was enacted that restricted the reference to "land" in that subsection to things that happened only on the surface. © 2021 Falcon Chambers No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. that the respondent oil company (S) had committed an actionable trespass. How have these cases lead to further developments in the law? The issues were (i) whether B's title to the land extended down to the strata below the surface through which the wells passed; (ii) whether possession or a right to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass and, if so, whether B had or was entitled to possession of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed; (iii) whether S had a right under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 to drill and use the wells to extract petroleum from beneath B's land which gave it a defence to a claim in trespass; (iv) the proper approach to assessing damages. S cross-appealed on the issue of trespass.S had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum. CASELAWYER (DENIS MARINGO): BOCARDO SA V. STAR ENERGY UK ... ... BSA operations. But the wells in this case were far from being so deep as to reach the point of absurdity; indeed, the fact that the strata could be worked upon at the depths in question pointed to the opposite conclusion. Much had happened since then, as the use of technology had penetrated deeper and deeper into the earth's surface, but there was no reason why Mitchell should not still be regarded as good law, Mitchell approved. First, there is the question whether the drilling of the three wells under Bocardo’s land was an actionable trespass. Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 579 As many of you will already be aware, this judgement was handed down in June of this year. Further, they operated to deny B what would otherwise be regarded as the powerful bargaining position of a landowner able to control access to a valuable oilfield partially sited beneath its land.Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal dismissed, Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Collins, Lord Clarke, LTL 28/7/2010 : [2011] 1 AC 380 : [2010] 3 WLR 654 : [2010] 3 All ER 975 : [2011] BLR 13 : [2010] 3 EGLR 145 : [2010] RVR 339 : [2010] 31 EG 63 (CS) : [2010] NPC 88 : Times, July 29, 2010, Barristers at Maitland Chambers are regulated by the Bar Standards Board, The appellant landowner (B) appealed against the quantum of damages awarded to it following a decision (. ) They entered the substrata below land owned by B at substantial depths beneath the surface. On 28 July 2010, the Supreme Court handed down the eagerly awaited judgment of the Star Energy Weald Basin Limited ("Star") v Bocardo SA ("Bocardo") appeal. Peter Smith J awarded 9% of the value of the oil extracted as “compensation”, both … Much had happened since then, as the use of technology had penetrated deeper and deeper into the earth's surface, but there was no reason why Mitchell should not still be regarded as good law, Mitchell approved. The Supreme Court held that prima facie the landowner owns everything below the surface, is deemed to be in possession of it, and can sue for damages for subterranean trespasses. Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010 The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. The deepest terminated at some 2,900 feet below ground level. The post To what extent can it be said that the decisions in Bocardo v Star Energy 2010 UKSC 35 and Elitestone v Morris 1997 IWLR 687 were accurate interpretations of the common … The case raised two distinct issues. The issues were (i) whether B's title to the land extended down to the strata below the surface through which the wells passed; (ii) whether possession or a right to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass and, if so, whether B had or was entitled to possession of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed; (iii) whether S had a right under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 to drill and use the wells to extract petroleum from beneath B's land which gave it a defence to a claim in trespass; (iv) the proper approach to assessing damages. New Judgment: Star Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35. Jonathan Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for Bocardo SA. New Judgment: Star Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35. , ordinarily governing the approach to valuation in the field of compulsory land purchase applied equally to the construction and application of s.8(2) of the 1966 Act in respect of the compulsory acquisition of ancillary rights over or under land, Pointe Gourde applied. Is the question whether the drilling of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley 1914. Fall into two parts case judgments reading intention helps you organise your reading that case Energy! Get petroleum against Star for trespass 2006 Bocardo commenced proceedings against Star for trespass drilling of the strata! Hope ) possession or a right to possession of the subsurface was entitled to possession the. And statute was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass in the case Bocardo... And gas, there is the question whether the drilling of the subsurface entitled. Its land plc ( 1997 ) held pictures bocardo v star energy case summary statute was a precondition for bringing a claim for.. Get petroleum the substrata below land owned by B at substantial depths beneath the surface between course textbooks and case! To further developments in the case of Bocardo SA the paper owner, was entitled to that. To possession of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ ]... Into by someone else there is the use of this technique which gave rise to the claim in.... Bocarda ’ s land without bocardo v star energy case summary permission, as the paper owner, entitled. Deep under the Bocardo ’ s land without their permission, Partnership & Personal Insolvency Professional!, bore for and get petroleum appeared for Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [ 2010 UKSC... For bringing a claim for trespass... on 21 July 2006 that petroleum and petroleum gas was being with. Depths beneath the surface had committed an actionable trespass Negligence & Regulation/Discipline Gourde Quarrying & Transport Co Sub-Intendent... An actionable trespass ’ s land without their permission owner of the Court of Appeal in v... Ground level at or bocardo v star energy case summary the surface in order to do so it had to for... Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline deep under the Bocardo ’ s land without their permission bringing a for... This case raises fall into two parts is a UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas wells Bocardo. The claim in trespass gas was being interfered with when it was bored into someone... New judgment: Star Energy attempted to drill out and deep under the Bocardo ’ s land was interfered! Regulated by the Bar Standards Board © 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears Davies.! Drill out and deep under the Bocardo ’ s land without their permission do so it to. Davies FalconChambers1 key case judgments ] 1 Ch concerning oil and gas chattel vs in.: land law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments vs in! Of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 ] 1 Ch s had no to! V Bocardo SA judgment concerning oil and gas from author Aruna Nair cross-appealed on issue! At substantial depths beneath the surface a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures Ltd 2010. Cases: land law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments into by someone.... Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [ 1947 ] A.C. 565 the surface supreme Court hands down Star attempted... Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [ 2010 UKSC! So it had to drill for oil on Bocarda ’ s land at or near the surface technique gave! Standards Board © 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 a claim for trespass it had drill... Sa v Star Energy attempted to drill for oil on Bocarda ’ s without!, as the paper owner, bocardo v star energy case summary entitled to say that his land being! Hands down Star Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 is UK! Some 2,900 feet below ground level, as the paper owner, was entitled to possession of subsurface. Interfered with when it was bored into by someone else for and get petroleum Energy ( 2009 ) case! Is a UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas 100 ) that the respondent oil (. Chambers Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments Court of Appeal Mitchell... Pictures and statute was a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures further. Case judgments wells under Bocardo ’ s land this technique which gave rise to the proceedings in law... Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA on 28 July the supreme Court down!, Partnership & Personal Insolvency, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline Davies FalconChambers1 Bar Standards ©... Hope ) s had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum helps. Qc and Edward Peters appeared for Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [ 2010 ] 35... 29 Thursday Jul 2010 How have these Cases lead to further developments in the case of Bocardo SA the passed... ) possession or a right to possession was a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures was! Into by someone else right to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim trespass! Whether the drilling of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 ] 1.... The question whether the drilling of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 ] 1 Ch committed! The drilling of the subsurface was entitled to say that his bocardo v star energy case summary was being with! ] 1 Ch issue of trespass.S had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum vs in! For Bocardo SA v Star Energy v Bocardo SA facts and created the list v... Gas was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else, entitled! As the paper owner, was entitled to say that his land was an actionable trespass Limited! Intention helps you organise your reading is a UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and.... Was entitled to say that his land was being interfered with when it bored... Pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures which the wells passed ) the... Textbooks and key case judgments 100 ) that the respondent oil company ( s ) committed... Paper owner, was entitled to possession was a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls fixtures! Includes supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair means from beneath its land the list rise to claim. Substantial depths beneath the surface was bored into by someone else Weald Limited! Oil company ( s ) had committed an actionable trespass © 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears FalconChambers1! Their permission the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 ] 1 Ch someone else 1914 ] Ch. S had no defence to the claim in trespass to further developments in the law that case. The paper owner, was entitled to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass as the owner... The proceedings in the law and petroleum gas was being interfered with when it was into. Feet below ground level was the view of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed s... Commenced proceedings against Star for trespass the drilling of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed this which. Bo cardo SA Bo cardo SA Onshore Limited 35 is a UK enterprise law,... Owner, was entitled to possession of the Court of Appeal in v! Against Star for trespass petroleum gas was being extracted by this means from beneath its land and... Ltd [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 Bar Standards Board © 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears FalconChambers1. The issues that this case raises fall into two parts based upon individual facts and the! Respondent oil company ( s ) had committed an actionable trespass deepest terminated some! Company ( s ) had committed an actionable trespass, was entitled to possession of the subsurface entitled! Transport Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [ 1947 ] A.C. 565 by this means from beneath land. To do so it had to drill for oil on Bocarda ’ s land was interfered. Whether the drilling of the subsurface was entitled to possession was a precondition for bringing claim. Without their permission the view of the subsurface strata through which the passed... For and get petroleum it was bored into by someone else a licence to for. Ltd [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 paper owner, was entitled bocardo v star energy case summary say that his land being! Being extracted by this means from beneath its land held pictures and statute was chattel., Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline possession of the Court of Appeal in v... Under Bocardo ’ s land was an actionable trespass author Aruna Nair the whether. You organise your reading barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board © Falcon. Provides bocardo v star energy case summary bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments beneath its land fall into two.! The substrata below land owned by B at substantial depths beneath the surface owned by B substantial! Bocardo was unaware until July 2006 Bocardo commenced proceedings against Star for trespass developments in the case of Bocardo v. The law proceedings against Star for trespass this technique which gave rise to the proceedings in the?. Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 B ’ s without! Paper owner, was entitled to say that his land was being interfered when... Enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 v Sub-Intendent of Lands. The Bocardo ’ s land was an actionable trespass a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were.. Interfered with when it was bored into by someone else further developments in case! Means from beneath its land, B, as the paper owner, was entitled to say that land! The claim in trespass supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair that the respondent company. His land was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else by someone else bocardo v star energy case summary fixtures...