28:
187:
the value of the access to all the oil in the reservoir. Its particular value was to provide access to the apex (or attic) oil. I am not, at least at present, persuaded that that was the basis upon which the figure was arrived at by the judge. In these circumstances, if this were a live issue, I would remit it to the High Court for determination.
151:
landowner did not make use of the ground. But, for assessing damages, the right measure was the amount of compensation payable under the Mines (Working
Facilities and Support) Act 1966. This operated to prevent the powerful bargaining position of a landowner to control access to a potentially valuable oilfield.
163:
that was obtained by drilling into the apex of the reservoir. If this had been a live issue it would have been necessary to remit the case to the High Court so that it could assess the amount of the extra value and complete the exercise of calculating, on this much more limited basis, the amount of the damages.
174:
90. … Parliament was at one and the same time extinguishing whatever pre-existing key value
Bocardo's land might be thought to have had in the open market and creating a new world in which only the Crown and its licencees had any interest in accessing the oilfield and in which they had been empowered
186:
171. ‘the correct approach would be to assess a fair and reasonable amount to reflect the key value of the wayleave, in the words of section 8(2), as between a willing grantor and a willing grantee, and to add 10% in accordance with the statute. However, as I see it, that key value would not reflect
162:
44. In my opinion the sum of £621,180 plus interest that he awarded as damages was excessive, as it was not restricted to the amount that was attributable to the key value of the land. I would not be averse to using his figure of 9%, so long as it was applied only to the extra amount of oil and gas
133:
Peter Smith J held that
Bocardo's title extended to the substrata beneath the land's surface, and though the pipelines cause not damage, nor affected enjoyment, there was a trespass. Under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 s 8(2) compensation would be based on ‘what would be fair
150:
The
Supreme Court held by a majority of three to two that the Court of Appeal had been correct. Bocardo did own the ground, and was entitled to claim for trespass by the wells. Star Energy had no defence in trespass under PPA 1934 s 10(3) (re-enacted in PA 1998 s 9(2). It was irrelevant if a
79:
case, concerning oil and gas. 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 2,900 feet (240 to 880 m) below the surface was trespass, and had to pay compulsory purchase
134:
and reasonable between a willing grantor and a willing grantee’. He awarded £621,180, calculated at 9% of the value of the oil extracted between July 2000 and
December 2007, and continuing damages for trespass based on the same.
300:
312:
120:. Its predecessors drilled three diagonal wells, with pipelines going between 800 and 2,900 feet (240 and 880 m) below land Bocardo owned. Star Energy had never sought Bocardo's permission.
158:
1 Ch 438. There had to be a logical limit, where pressure and temperature to the Earth's core made ownership so absurd as to be not worth arguing about, but the wells were not that deep.
278:
217:
154:
Lord Hope, giving the first and dissenting judgment, said a landowner did own the ground beneath, including minerals, unless there was a conveyance or statute, as in
81:
426:
243:
175:
to do so (to turn the key if one wants to persist in the metaphor) compulsorily and thus on terms subject to the Pointe Gourde approach to compensation.
210:
104:
was no defence. Star Energy had a licence to search for, bore and get petroleum under the
Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 section 2 at
203:
101:
397:
27:
170:
Lord Brown said the right compensation was small. In his view by the PPA 1934, giving the Crown exclusive rights:
268:
142:
The Court of Appeal reduced compensation to £1,000, on the basis that the trespass was actionable but technical.
365:
355:
116:. It got the licence in 1999, though it was originally issued by the Secretary of State for Energy in 1980 to
105:
265:
345:
375:
325:
290:
386:
76:
167:
Lord Walker agreed on the trespass issue, but said the Court of Appeal was right on damages.
38:
335:
233:
420:
72:
48:
179:
Lord
Collins agreed with Lord Hope on the principles and Lord Brown on quantum.
97:
93:
195:
109:
117:
113:
302:
Petroleum
Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008
199:
100:) committed trespass, and that a licence under the
55:
44:
34:
20:
280:Hydrocarbons Licensing Directive Regulations 1995
184:
172:
160:
82:Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966
211:
8:
218:
204:
196:
26:
17:
314:R (Frack Free Balcombe) v West Sussex CC
255:Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd
69:Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd
21:Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd
7:
427:United Kingdom enterprise case law
14:
102:Petroleum (Production) Act 1934
1:
398:United Kingdom enterprise law
443:
244:Continental Shelf Act 1964
61:Drilling, energy, trespass
383:
373:
363:
353:
343:
333:
323:
309:
298:
288:
276:
263:
251:
241:
231:
226:Gas, oil and coal sources
60:
25:
366:Corporation Tax Act 2010
356:Corporation Tax Act 2010
182:Lord Clarke dissented.
80:compensation under the
266:Hydrocarbons Directive
189:
177:
165:
106:Palmers Wood Oil Field
346:Oil Taxation Act 1975
236:ss 1-85 and Schs 1-2
376:Petroleum Act 1998
326:Petroleum Act 1998
291:Petroleum Act 1998
393:
392:
387:UK enterprise law
77:UK enterprise law
65:
64:
434:
315:
303:
281:
220:
213:
206:
197:
92:Bocardo claimed
39:UK Supreme Court
30:
18:
442:
441:
437:
436:
435:
433:
432:
431:
417:
416:
411:
406:
394:
389:
379:
369:
359:
349:
339:
336:Energy Act 2011
329:
319:
313:
305:
301:
294:
284:
279:
272:
259:
247:
237:
234:Energy Act 2016
227:
224:
194:
148:
140:
138:Court of Appeal
131:
126:
90:
12:
11:
5:
440:
438:
430:
429:
419:
418:
415:
414:
410:
407:
405:
402:
401:
400:
391:
390:
384:
381:
380:
374:
371:
370:
364:
361:
360:
354:
351:
350:
344:
341:
340:
334:
331:
330:
324:
321:
320:
310:
307:
306:
299:
296:
295:
289:
286:
285:
277:
274:
273:
264:
261:
260:
252:
249:
248:
242:
239:
238:
232:
229:
228:
225:
223:
222:
215:
208:
200:
193:
190:
147:
144:
139:
136:
130:
127:
125:
122:
96:(now owned by
89:
86:
63:
62:
58:
57:
53:
52:
46:
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
439:
428:
425:
424:
422:
413:
412:
408:
403:
399:
396:
395:
388:
382:
377:
372:
367:
362:
357:
352:
347:
342:
337:
332:
327:
322:
317:
316:
308:
304:
297:
292:
287:
282:
275:
270:
267:
262:
257:
256:
250:
245:
240:
235:
230:
221:
216:
214:
209:
207:
202:
201:
198:
191:
188:
183:
180:
176:
171:
168:
164:
159:
157:
152:
146:Supreme Court
145:
143:
137:
135:
128:
123:
121:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
87:
85:
83:
78:
74:
71:
70:
59:
54:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
311:
254:
253:
185:
181:
178:
173:
169:
166:
161:
155:
153:
149:
141:
132:
91:
68:
67:
66:
15:
358:ss 272-279A
98:IGas Energy
94:Star Energy
51:, 1 AC 380
409:References
129:High Court
378:ss 28A-45
328:ss 17-17H
318:EWHC 4108
45:Citations
421:Category
338:ss 82-83
283:regs 3-5
271:arts 2-6
269:94/22/EC
192:See also
156:Mitchell
124:Judgment
110:Godstone
84:s 8(2).
56:Keywords
258:UKSC 35
73:UKSC 35
49:UKSC 35
293:ss 1-4
246:s 1(1)
118:Conoco
114:Surrey
404:Notes
368:s 330
108:, at
88:Facts
75:is a
35:Court
385:See
348:s 1
112:in
423::
219:e
212:t
205:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
