Cranes, safety, air rights and oversail licences

Cranes, safety, air rights and oversail licences

30 Aug 2017

By Kim Lovegrove RML  FAIB of Lovegrove & Cotton – Construction and Planning Lawyers

The unprecedented high-rise residential boom has punctuated Australian city skylines with cranes for some years now. Cranes are integral apparatus for high-rise construction yet they can pose dangers to site personnel and adjoining properties. In August 2016, the Canberra Times reported the death of a 62 year old man caused by a mobile crane that toppled over at a Canberra hospital work site (Clare Sibthorpe, Construction worker’s death at University of Canberra hospital worksite sparks safety calls, The Canberra Times, accessed at <>). Between 2007 and 2013 Cranes accounted for three deaths in Western Australia, and crane deaths apparently account for eight percent of deaths on building sites in America.

Cranes have also been known to damage adjoining property. In February 2016 the arm of a crane crashed on to a road in St Kilda damaging cars (Craig Butt, Crane catches fire, collapses on St Kilda Road worksite, The Age, accessed at

In light of the dangers that cranes can pose, Australian standard 2550 is dedicated to inspection protocols for cranes.

Little wonder then that there has emerged an astute practice where adjoining or neighbouring property owners negotiate and execute crane over sail agreements with developers and or contractors whom are intent on using cranes. Cranes can cause a degree of danger and the use of cranes requires a fair measure of safety dexterity and rigor.

As cranes can have a deleterious impact upon adjoining property, it is very important that neighbours satisfy themselves that risks of crane-inspired surprises are removed. As neighbouring property owners by law own air rights proximate to and above their land holdings, they can leverage of those rights by ensuring that licence agreements are fashioned to document crane handling procedures that minimise the threat of adverse impacts to surrounding properties. It follows that crane over sail licences are paramount legal instruments that can be utilised to minimise said risks.

Air Rights and trespass

The law of trespass dictates that property owners are entitled to enjoy exclusive dominion over their properties and are likewise entitled to determine who may set foot on their properties. There is an assumption in that prerogative that the permission of the property owner must be forthcoming before a visitor sets foot or intrudes into the owner’s realm. Those who choose to venture into an owners’ property absent requisite permission commit an act of trespass, regardless of whether the intrusion occurs on the land, the building above the land or the air above the building or the land.

It follows that developers and builders must have regard to the property rights of neighbours and consistent with this regard is an understanding that they must obtain the permission of the neighbours to operate a crane in circumstances where crane apparatus such as the those where a jib is likely to aerially rotate or manoeuvre above neighbouring property.

The requirement to obtain permission to enter another’s domain is a well-established common law doctrine and some acts of Parliament have, in more recent times, promulgated regulations that enshrine that right.

His Lordship, Scott J in Anchor Brewhouse Developments v Berkeley House (Docklands Development) Ltd (1987) 284 EG 625 had this to say about such rights: “if an adjoining owner places a structure on his (the adjoining owner’s) land, he thereby takes into his possession air space to which his neighbour is entitled”.

Graham v KD Morris & Sons Pty Ltd [1974] Qd R 1 further amplifies the application of the Cujus Est Solum Doctrine. In this case, a crane jib on a number of occasions intruded into a neighbouring property’s airspace. His Honour WB Campbell determined that trespass was evident and his Honour found that the defendant had interfered with that part of the airspace above her land and this impacted upon her use, enjoyment and value of that land.

The case law thus establishes that if a developer fails to obtain the permission of neighbours to operate a crane in circumstances that will involve aerial trespass, the neighbour(s) can seek injunctive relief from a court of law to compel the developer to refrain from operating the crane until permission is forthcoming. However, the success of such injunctions is contingent upon ‘reasonableness’.

In Woolerton and Wilson Ltd v. Richard Costain Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 411, trespass was claimed as a result of the crane in the adjoining property oversailing the plaintiff’s property. Despite the defendant admitting trespass and offering substantial compensation, the plaintiff refused to grant an over sail licence. The plaintiffs sought and obtained an injunction that was subsequently suspended by the court. A consideration as part of the suspension was whether contractor had acted reasonably in offering payment.

It follows that developers and neighbours alike should at the earliest opportunity parley with the view to documenting the basis of an agreement which will take the form of an over sail license.

Key matters to consider and incorporate into an over sail licence.

Safety is the primary concern; hence, neighbours would be well advised to engage the services of a suitable safety consultant to examine the crane machinery, safety integrity, over sail radius drawings and so forth.

The consultant will also need to be satisfied that severe winds will not generate any deleterious impact upon adjoining property on account of jib movement or rotation.

Equally, regard must be had to the matter of how the crane is maintained and whether the crane has been regularly inspected in accordance with AS 2550. The lawyers negotiating a crane over sail agreement should as, part of their due diligence, obtain assurances that the crane is in ‘tip-top’ condition as it were.

The developers and the contractor should also sign indemnities that indemnify the adjoining property holders for any liabilities or damage that may emanate from crane use. Insurance too must
be obtained, and the lawyer should consult with an insurance broker to ensure that the developer obtains the right amount of cover and the appropriate scope of cover.

Operation of cranes close to airports.

Worthy of mention is the fact that it is an offence under the Airports Act 1996 to operate a crane proximate to an airport and legal advice should be sought by crane operators to ensure that they do not offend the provisions of said legislation.

As cranes can, in certain circumstances, pose dangers to not only operators, but also those who come within their radius or aerial ambit, if you will. It is very important that adjoining property owners have input into crane risk management and risk minimisation. The deployment of lawyers to negotiate and finalise crane over sail agreements is an integral part of that risk minimisation process along with the input of an experienced safety consultant who can work in cohorts with the lawyer to deliver an optimum risk mitigation outcome.

Lovegrove & Cotton Lawyers to the building industry
For thirty years, Lovegrove & Cotton have represented builders, building surveyors and building practitioners in Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Queensland. Doyles Guide ranks Kim Lovegrove as one of the leading construction lawyers in Australia. Justin Cotton, likewise, is a leading Australian construction lawyer and widely respected in the building fraternity as evidenced by his recent elevation to Chairperson of the HIA Industrial Relations and Legal Services Committee, and member of the Regional Executive Council, for HIA Victorian Chapter. Lovegrove & Cotton can help practitioners resolve any type of building dispute and are preeminent in the area of building practitioner advocacy.

If you wish to engage the firm, feel free to contact us via our website or by emailing