Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch) (24 July 2008)

Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch) (24 July 2008)

The defendants' drilling and laying of pipelines beneath the claimant's land, even at significant depth, constituted actionable trespass because ownership of the subsoil remains with the surface owner unless expressly severed. The statutory vesting of petroleum in the Crown did not confer access rights to the defendants, who failed to negotiate or acquire such rights. Damages are to be assessed on a fair and reasonable wayleave basis, reflecting hypothetical negotiations between willing parties, not on a nominal or ransom basis. The limitation period is not a bar to the claim due to deliberate concealment by the defendants and their predecessors.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Bocardo SA; First Defendant: Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd; Second Defendant: Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (trespass, Damages) / High Court, Chancery Division, Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant (Bocardo SA) on liability for trespass; damages to be assessed on a fair and reasonable wayleave basis.
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Compulsory Acquisition, Ancillary Rights, Damages Assessment, Limitation of Actions, Oil and Gas Extraction
Property Law Tort Law Energy Law Trespass to Land Compulsory Acquisition Ancillary Rights Damages Assessment Limitation of Actions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bocardo SA

Claimant

Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd

First Defendant

Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (trespass, Damages) / High Court, Chancery Division, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the drilling and laying of pipelines beneath the claimant's land at significant depth constituted actionable trespass.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for trespass, and if so, the proper measure of such damages.
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period bars any part of the claim due to alleged concealment by the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' drilling and laying of pipelines beneath the claimant's land, even at significant depth, constituted actionable trespass because ownership of the subsoil remains with the surface owner unless expressly severed. The statutory vesting of petroleum in the Crown did not confer access rights to the defendants, who failed to negotiate or acquire such rights. Damages are to be assessed on a fair and reasonable wayleave basis, reflecting hypothetical negotiations between willing parties, not on a nominal or ransom basis. The limitation period is not a bar to the claim due to deliberate concealment by the defendants and their predecessors.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant (Bocardo SA) on liability for trespass; damages to be assessed on a fair and reasonable wayleave basis.

Orders

  • Defendants found liable for trespass beneath the Oxted Estate.
  • Damages to be assessed based on a negotiated wayleave percentage of the value of oil extracted via PW5 and PW8, not exceeding 12.5%.