



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The Ad Coelum concept is a legal principle in English common law that a person who owns a piece of land also owns the space above and below it. This principle, derived from Roman Law, has been challenged and modified over time, particularly with the advent of space exploration and the discovery of minerals. the history and implications of the Ad Coelum concept, including its limitations and modern interpretations.
Typology: Exercises
1 / 5
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The general rule is when you take title to a property you also have title to the land it stands on. This includes the space above and the ground below. English common law has its roots in Roman Law principles and this principle is neatly encapsulated in the Latin Maxim known by lawyers as “Ad Coelum….” which is abbreviated from “Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos” The literal translation of this is “[for] whoever owns [the] soil, [it] is his all the way [up] to Heaven and [down] to Hell.” As the name describes, the principle is that a person who owns a particular piece of land owns everything above and below it as well. Consequently, the owner could prosecute trespass against people who violated the border but never actually touched the soil. As with any other property rights, the owner can sell or lease it to others, or it may be taken or regulated by the state. For example, suppose three people owned neighboring plots of land. The owners of the plots on the ends want to build a bridge over the center plot connecting their two properties. Even though the bridge would never touch the soil of the owner in the middle, the principle of cuius est solum would allow the middle owner to stop its construction or demand payment for the right to do so. By the same principle, a person who wants to mine under somebody's land would have to get permission from the owner to do so, even if the mine entrance was on neighboring land. The Causby case rejected the notion that property ownership extended upward 'indefinitely', while still recognizing a landowner retains complete domain over the lower altitudes above their property. The court noted that ad coelum "had no meaning in the modern world", while also holding that "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment
of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" ..."The fact that he does not occupy [the space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it.” id 264. On remand, the Court of Claims established the landowner's property extends upward to only 365 feet, but not above. see Causby v U.S. court of claims (1948). With the advent of space exploration, the upper limits to the "ad coelum" doctrine now include issues of national sovereignty. Strong arguments can be made for and against the altitude at which national sovereignty ceases and the rights of orbit or travel start. In particular, the making of national territorial claims in outer spaceo and on celestial bodies bhas been specifically proscribed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was, as of 2012, ultimately ratified by all space-faring nations. Article II of the treaty notes that "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation." The " ad coelum" doctrine-that property or sovereignty extends indefinable upward-is no longer accepted without limitations. This is not surprising since any claim to space based on national boundaries is based upon points defined on the surface of a rotating planet and therefore must have an upper boundary. The " ad infernum" theory positing property ownership "to the center of the Earth" has also been eroded. A review of modern American jurisprudence demonstrates that the theory is more poetic hyperbole than binding law, and that broadly speaking, the deeper the disputed region, the less likely courts are to recognize that the surface owner holds subsurface title. Appraisal studies of subsurface projects
is probably of more concern for home owners (the Wollongong area). When Fracking infringes In a modern day context what might be worthy of some discussion is what happens to titles where there is no reservation of minerals and someone starts fracking right next door. All of the evidence suggests the fracking company drills straight down and then travels horizontally – and that might mean accessing shale gas in land over which they have no rights. In modern law, this principle is still accepted in limited form, and the rights are divided into ir rights above and subsurface rights below. Property title includes the space immediately above and below the ground – preventing overhanging parts of neighboring buildings including trees but do not have rights to control flights far above the ground or in space. In dense urban areas, air rights may be transferable to allow construction of new buildings over existing buildings. Common in the Adelaide CBD. Ownership of minerals in Australia According to the maxim "to whomsoever the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky and to the depths", there is a presumption that a land owner also owns all minerals on or beneath the surface of that land. The presumption is subject to the exception of the Royal metals. As early as the sixteenth century, the has held that all gold and silver, whether situated on public or private land, has been owned by the Crown. This Royal prerogative has also been applied in Australia, by both common law and legislation. However, the principle of the owner of land owning the minerals within it has been virtually abolished by statute in Australia. The general rule is that the Crown (in right of the State) owns all minerals. This has been implemented by statute; initially by enacting that all future grants of land must contain a reservation to the Crown of all minerals.
Now, all new grants of freehold titles in Australia have provided that all minerals were reserved to the Crown. In respect of titles granted prior to the legislation, the owner of the land retained ownership of the minerals (except the Royal metals of gold and silver). That owner may grant a profit à prendre to enter and take minerals. Crown ownership of minerals has been made universal in Victoria and South Australia by legislative expropriation of all minerals. In Tasmania and New South Wales, this approach of legislative expropriation has been applied on a selective basis (in Tasmania, for gold, silver, oil, hydrogen, helium and atomic substances, and, in New South Wales, for coal). The Crown, pursuant to statute, may grant various leases or licences to enter onto land and take minerals. State ownership of minerals has had the important result that governments, rather than private landholders, determine the legal regimes governing mineral exploration and production.