Sensitivity in the law of nuisance: Should people in glass houses expect voyeurs? Fearn v Tate Gallery [2019] EWHC 246 (Ch)
Material type:
ArticlePublication details: Sage, 2019.Description: Vol 21, Issue 2, 2019( 136-139 p.)Subject(s):
In:
Environmental law reviewSummary: The case Fearn v Tate Gallery involved claims brought by luxury London flat owners for breach of privacy in relation to the Tate Modern’s nearby viewing platform. One of the key issues in the case, heard by Mann J in the High Court, was whether the floor-to-ceiling glass windows of the flats – through which members of the public on the viewing platform could easily gaze – meant the residents were unduly sensitive users of the land for the purposes of the tort of nuisance. This case note considers this question along with the principle in nuisance that it is normally no defence to say that the claimant came to the nuisance. Both sensitivity and the coming to the nuisance (non-) defence are important elements of nuisance as an environmental tort and hence the case is worthy of note for environmental lawyers.
| Item type | Current library | Collection | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E-Journal
|
Library, SPAB | E-Journals | Vol. 24(1-4),2019 | Available |
The case Fearn v Tate Gallery involved claims brought by luxury London flat owners for breach of privacy in relation to the Tate Modern’s nearby viewing platform. One of the key issues in the case, heard by Mann J in the High Court, was whether the floor-to-ceiling glass windows of the flats – through which members of the public on the viewing platform could easily gaze – meant the residents were unduly sensitive users of the land for the purposes of the tort of nuisance. This case note considers this question along with the principle in nuisance that it is normally no defence to say that the claimant came to the nuisance. Both sensitivity and the coming to the nuisance (non-) defence are important elements of nuisance as an environmental tort and hence the case is worthy of note for environmental lawyers.
There are no comments on this title.