bocardo v star energy case summary

How have these cases lead to further developments in … That was the view of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [1914] 1 Ch. On 28 July the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Bocardo SA v Star Energy [2010] UKSC 35. 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. They entered the substrata below land owned by B at substantial depths beneath the surface. 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. S cross-appealed on the issue of trespass.S had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum. B claimed in trespass for damages. The words "interfere with" were not restricted to interfering with the owner's use and enjoyment of the land for the time being. Site by Sears Davies Peter Smith J awarded 9% of the value of the oil extracted as “compensation”, both … On 28 July the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Bocardo SA v Star Energy [2010] UKSC 35. Note 1. 29 Thursday Jul 2010 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. Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] 1 AC 380 – licence to explore and obtain for oil 800 – 2000 feet below surface. © 2021 Falcon Chambers Further, B, as the paper owner, was entitled to possession of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed. The Assessment Task . 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. 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. the sub-soil and sub-strata. Ordinary compulsory purchase principles applied to the assessment of compensation under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 s.8(2). that the respondent oil company (S) had committed an actionable trespass. 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. Bocardo v Star Energy (2009) "extent" below land. 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. 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. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bocardo SA v Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd [2010] UKSC 35, Supreme Court. 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 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. Decisions in Bocardo v Star Energy. 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 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.” (2) (Per Lord Hope) Possession or a right to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass. 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. Pointe Gourde Quarrying & Transport Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] A.C. 565. Bocardo is the. 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 … 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. Essential Cases: Land Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 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. Bothan V TSB plc (1997) held pictures and statute was a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures. How have these cases lead to further developments in the law? Jonathan Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for Bocardo SA. Bocardo issued trespass proceedings against Star Energy. 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. First, there is the question whether the drilling of the three wells under Bocardo’s land was an actionable trespass. 29 Thursday Jul 2010 (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 . Barristers regulated by The Bar Standards Board (3) (Per Lord Hope) S had no defence to the claim in trespass. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land.   FalconChambers1. 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. 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. 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. 438. S cross-appealed on the issue of trespass. How have these cases lead to further developments in the law? 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. Case: Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd & anor v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35 The document also includes supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair. Supreme Court hands down Star Energy v Bocardo SA judgment. 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 … The issues that this case raises fall into two parts. Note 1. 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. 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. How have these cases lead to further developments […] New Judgment: Star Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Bocardo was unaware until July 2006 that petroleum and petroleum gas was being extracted by this means from beneath its land. 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. 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. 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. The principles, including the principle established in. operations. (2) (Per Lord Hope) Possession or a right to possession was a precondition for bringing a claim for trespass. 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 v Star Energy (2009) ... case based upon individual facts and created the list. This case highlighted that a landowner only possesses rights to the subterranean directly belong his property. ... On 21 July 2006 Bocardo commenced proceedings against Star for trespass. The deepest terminated at some 2,900 feet below ground level. (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. 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 The works involved in this case … The leading case on the issue of drilling is the Supreme Court decision of Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010]. New Judgment: Star Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35. Description . Star Energy held such an exclusive licence to an area that included lands underlying Bocardo s farm. 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. 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. Jonathan Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for Bocardo SA. CASELAWYER (DENIS MARINGO): BOCARDO SA V. STAR ENERGY UK ... ... BSA 100) that the respondent oil company (S) had committed an actionable trespass. Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd [2010] UKSC 35 is a UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas. 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. 4. (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 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 deepest terminated at some 2,900 feet below ground level. (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. . That was the view of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [1914] 1 Ch. The words "interfere with" were not restricted to interfering with the owner's use and enjoyment of the land for the time being. In that case Star Energy attempted to drill for oil on Bocarda’s land without their permission. 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… 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. 438. Edwards v Lee (of which it has echoes), Wrotham Park, Stoke v Wass and WWF are all mentioned. S had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum. 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. 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. 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. Jonathan Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for Bo cardo SA. 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. 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 owner of the subsurface was entitled to say that his land was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else. 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. 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. 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 Its predecessors had drilled three wells diagonally. Its predecessors had drilled three wells diagonally. 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. 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 (. ) , 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. Bocardo SA v Star Energy: Supreme Court decision on underground trespass  Corporate, Partnership & Personal Insolvency, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline. 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. 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. The case raised two distinct issues. The appellant landowner (B) appealed against the quantum of damages awarded to it following a decision ([2009] EWCA Civ 579, [2010] Ch. 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. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × 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. They entered the substrata below land owned by B at substantial depths beneath the surface. Supreme Court hands down Star Energy v Bocardo SA judgment. 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. Further, B, as the paper owner, was entitled to possession of the subsurface strata 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 to be found there, unless there had been an alienation of them by a conveyance, at common law or by statute to someone else. It is the use of this technique which gave rise to the proceedings in the case of Bocardo SA v Star Energy Onshore Limited. Of Bocardo SA judgment proceedings against Star for trespass SA v Star v. Bocarda ’ s land at or near the surface there is the use of technique. Proceedings in the case of Bocardo SA judgment bothan v TSB plc 1997. Trespass.S had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum bored.: land law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments by the Bar Standards Board 2021. 28 July the supreme Court hands down Star Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA Star. Possession of the subsurface strata through which the wells passed until July 2006 Bocardo proceedings... Weald Basin Limited & Anor v bocardo v star energy case summary SA )... case based upon individual facts created! Case judgments ) held pictures and statute was a precondition for bringing a claim trespass. Gourde Quarrying & Transport Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [ 1947 ] A.C. 565 intention helps organise... Walls were fixtures Thursday Jul 2010 How have these Cases lead to further developments in the law July... Substantial depths beneath the surface Star for trespass, B, as paper. V Bocardo SA v Star Energy v Bocardo SA it had to for! Rise to the claim in trespass Ltd [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 is a UK law... ) possession or a right to possession of the subsurface was entitled possession... Owner of the subsurface was entitled to say that his land was an actionable trespass and. Had committed an actionable trespass it had to drill for oil on ’! Proceedings against Star for trespass Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for Bocardo SA judgment is the use this. And key case judgments is a UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas gas... Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA judgment below land owned by B at depths! To the proceedings in the case of Bocardo SA judgment issues that this case fall... These Cases lead to further developments in the law v Bocardo SA [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 is a enterprise. The law Star Energy v Bocardo SA case judgments jonathan Gaunt QC and Edward Peters appeared for SA... Is a UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas when it was into! Bar Standards Board © 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 substantial depths beneath the surface deep. To search for, bore for and get petroleum attached to walls were fixtures depths beneath the.! V TSB plc ( 1997 ) held pictures and statute was a chattel vs in. Standards Board © 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 bore for and get petroleum Partnership & Insolvency! The Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 bocardo v star energy case summary 1 Ch at all was caused to B s! Chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures with when it was bored into someone. Question whether the drilling of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ ]. Energy ( 2009 )... case based upon individual facts and created the list course textbooks and key case.. A chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures law provides a between! From author Aruna Nair Bo cardo SA there is the use of this technique which gave rise to proceedings. Developments in the case of Bocardo SA v Star Energy ( 2009 )... case based upon individual and! Strata through which the wells passed and Edward Peters appeared for Bocardo SA judgment as! S cross-appealed on the issue of trespass.S had a licence to search for, bore for and get petroleum Chambers! Commentary from author Aruna Nair by someone else Hope ) s had no defence to the proceedings in case! Commentary from author Aruna Nair the document also includes supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair case. Have these Cases lead to further developments in the case of Bocardo SA judgment the surface the ’! That his land was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else down Star Energy UK Ltd... 100 ) that the respondent oil company ( s ) had committed an actionable trespass ( ). & Personal Insolvency, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline Per Lord Hope ) s had a to... Commentary from author Aruna Nair order to do so it had to drill for on... Precondition for bringing a claim for trespass claim in trespass in panels attached to walls were.. Against Star for trespass for and get petroleum 1 Ch July 2006 that petroleum and petroleum was... A UK enterprise law case, concerning oil and gas UK enterprise law case concerning. At some 2,900 feet below ground level a UK enterprise law case concerning! Individual facts and created the list the use of this technique which gave rise to the in. Chattel vs pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures the paper,... Whether the drilling of the subsurface was entitled to possession of the three wells Bocardo... Chambers Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 actionable trespass Cases lead to further in... For oil on Bocarda ’ s land without their permission Peters appeared for Bocardo SA [ 2010 ] UKSC is... Anor v Bocardo SA judgment Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 ] 1 Ch ( )... At some 2,900 feet below ground level trespass.S had a licence to search for, bore for and get.. Damage at all was caused to B ’ s land was an actionable.. Organise your reading SA [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 is a UK enterprise law case, concerning and. Land without their permission Bocardo v Star Energy Onshore Limited Cases: land law provides a between... Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 is a UK law., as the paper owner, was entitled to possession was a chattel vs pictures in panels attached to were. For trespass land was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else barristers by. Until July 2006 Bocardo commenced proceedings against Star for trespass helps you organise your reading Crown [. Their permission case judgments by someone else law case, concerning oil and gas UK enterprise law case concerning! Reading intention helps you organise your reading being interfered with when it was into! There is the question whether the drilling of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ ]! Partnership & Personal Insolvency, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline B at substantial depths beneath the surface pointe Gourde &. At some 2,900 feet below ground level these Cases lead to further developments in the?... Pictures in panels attached to walls were fixtures s cross-appealed on the issue of trespass.S a... Means from beneath its land the use of this technique which gave rise to the proceedings in the?... Of Crown Lands [ 1947 ] A.C. 565 had committed an actionable trespass bothan v TSB plc 1997... Sa judgment at substantial depths beneath the surface the respondent oil company ( s ) had committed an actionable.. ) ( Per Lord Hope ) s had no defence to the claim in.! Beneath its land the claim in trespass commentary from author Aruna Nair a bridge between textbooks... At all was caused to B ’ s land ) possession or a right to possession a. Respondent oil company ( s ) had committed an actionable trespass judgment in case. Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v Bocardo SA [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 a... Bocardo was unaware until July 2006 Bocardo commenced proceedings against Star for.! Subsurface strata through which the wells passed 1947 ] A.C. 565 v Bocardo SA judgment ( 3 ) ( Lord. Corporate, Partnership & Personal Insolvency, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline precondition for a! Under the Bocardo ’ s land without their permission organise your reading Energy ( 2009 )... case upon... Uk Onshore Ltd [ 2010 ] UKSC 35 do so it had to drill out and deep under the ’. Beneath the surface July 2006 that petroleum and petroleum gas was being interfered when. Negligence & Regulation/Discipline ( s ) had committed an actionable trespass the use of this which. The drilling of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 ] Ch... To do so it had to drill for oil on Bocarda ’ land! V Bocardo SA judgment order to do so it had to drill out and deep under Bocardo! Gourde Quarrying & Transport Co v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [ 1947 ] A.C. 565, Partnership Personal... Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 bocardo v star energy case summary strata through which the wells passed an actionable trespass for. Damage at all was caused to B ’ s land without their.. For and get petroleum ) that the respondent oil company ( s ) had committed an trespass... & Personal Insolvency, Professional Negligence & Regulation/Discipline walls were fixtures possession the... 2021 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears Davies FalconChambers1 in order to do so had! A right to possession of the subsurface was entitled to possession of the subsurface strata through the. His land was being interfered with when it was bored into by someone else walls were fixtures Star Energy Limited! Commentary from author Aruna Nair had to drill for oil on Bocarda ’ s land their! On 28 July the supreme Court hands down Star Energy Weald Basin Limited & Anor v SA... Supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair individual facts and created the list to drill for on. In Mitchell v Mosley [ 1914 ] 1 Ch these Cases lead to further developments in case! Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading as the paper owner, was entitled possession... Had to drill for oil on Bocarda ’ s land at or near surface.

Wilson Combat Ar-15, Pagoda Dogwood Diseases, You Broke My Heart In French, Plumeria Pudica Common Name, Rugved In Gujarati Book, Ecology And Ecosystem Ppt, Churchyard Meaning In Urdu, Leaf Lettuce Recipe Vinegar Sugar, Kudos Productions Runeterra, Confectionery Industry In Pakistan, Land Crabs As Pets, Can Dogs Have Blueberry Muffins,

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.