A case introduced by homeowners of residences missed by Tate Fashionable’s viewing platform has reached the Supreme Court. The claimants, who personal 4 flats within the Neo-Bankside growth on London’s South Financial institution, took authorized motion in opposition to the Tate over its viewing platform, which affords a ‘360-degree view of London’ – together with by their floor-to-ceiling home windows into their houses.
They introduced a declare in nuisance in an try and cease ‘hundreds of thousands of visitors’ wanting by their home windows from the gallery’s viewing platform, however the Excessive Court dismissed their declare in 2019, with Mr Justice Mann discovering they may decrease the blinds or put up internet curtains.
Final 12 months, the Court of Attraction rejected the case however for various causes, holding that ‘overlooking does not fall within the scope of common law nuisance’.
In Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, the Supreme Court is being requested to contemplate whether or not a personal nuisance is able to offering a treatment in opposition to viewing from neighbouring land and whether or not public viewing from the Tate’s platform infringes Article 8 of the European Conference on Human Rights.
Tom Weekes QC, for the appellants, instructed the Supreme Court right now that, if the Court of Attraction was proper, his purchasers had no authorized treatment if the Tate began ‘using its tenth-floor walkway as a nightclub’ enjoying loud music, as a barbecue emitting smoke, and even as a ‘rubbish storage area’.
The impact of the Court of Attraction’s ruling was that the Tate might open the platform ‘24 hours a day and it could provide every visitor to the viewing gallery with binoculars’, Weekes added.
Weekes additionally argued that the Court of Attraction ‘misunderstood how Article 8 should affect the development of common law principles’, including: ‘It is difficult to think of a better or more appropriate case than this case for Article 8 to affect the development of the common law.’
Man Fetherstonhaugh QC, for the Tate, argued in written submissions that the Court of Attraction was right to not let the appellants ‘exploit the law of nuisance to let in by the back door a claim that does not belong to the tort’.
He added that ‘the change which the appellants seek to impose on the tort of nuisance cannot be described as incremental’, arguing that it will require ‘a conceptual decoupling of the tort of private nuisance from its fundamental concern with remedying wrongs to real property rights’.
The listening to is because of conclude on Wednesday afternoon and it’s anticipated that judgment will likely be reserved.