Residents of glass-front, luxury apartments located a short distance from the Tate Modern’s viewing platform have finally prevailed in a long-running legal dispute over privacy.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn judgments from the High Court and Court of Appeal comes as a blow to the Tate Modern, which will now be forced to erect screening or shut off parts of the viewing gallery to ensure guests cannot look into the flats.
Passing his judgment, Lord Leggatt said the viewing gallery, which is currently closed, left residents feeling like they were ‘on display in a zoo’ and that it was ‘not difficult to imagine how oppressive living in such circumstances would feel for an ordinary person’.
However, some legal commentators have questioned the impact of the decision, arguing that the ruling could open a new front of litigation. Meanwhile, others have questioned the expectancy of privacy for those people living in glass buildings within densely populated areas.
The journey to this point
The Neo Bankside residents originally took legal action over the ‘hundreds of thousands of visitors’ looking into their homes, but had their claim dismissed on the basis that the viewing platform at the Tate was not an actionable nuisance.
The High Court argued that remedial steps or protective measures, such as lowering solar blinds, could be taken to reduce the interference caused by the overlooking.
In 2020, the claim was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the ‘overlooking’ could not give rise to a cause of action in nuisance. Instead, it said that it was up to parliament to create laws to deal with the problem, rather than extend the law of private nuisance itself.
Now, three years on, the Supreme Court’s 3-2 majority ruling held that the Tate was liable to the residents in private nuisance, stating that the viewing of flats from the platform went far beyond anything that could reasonably be regarded as necessary or a natural consequence of common and ordinary use of land.
Overlooking v intrusion
Of course, the decision has sparked much debate amongst construction lawyers and architects, with many questioning where it will lead.
Perhaps one of the most interesting findings was that visual intrusion can constitute an actionable nuisance in certain cases. In fact, Lord Leggatt noted in his judgment that technological developments increase the potential for similar claims in the future.
Whilst a degree of overlooking is said to be expected according to the principle of ‘give and take’, the ruling suggests the line between overlooking and visual intrusion is much finer than many expected, as is the difference between ordinary/common and unusual/uncommon use.
Upon reaching its verdict, the Supreme Court did not determine what remedy the flat owners are entitled to now they have founded a claim for an actionable nuisance – that task has been given to the Chancery Division of the High Court, so it will be interesting to see how it is finally resolved.
An increase in future claims…
This case is an interesting example of how architectural and technological advancements have impacted existing laws and the way there are interpreted by the courts.
Whilst some critics have argued that those choosing to live in a glass tower within London’s city centre should expect to sacrifice some form of privacy, others believe the blame lies with planners and designers who didn’t foresee this situation arising.
No matter which side of the argument you lean towards, this Supreme Court ruling could lead to more claims of visual intrusion, especially as modern architecture progresses.
If you have been impacted by any of the issues discussed, contact an experienced property law team for advice and guidance.
