(NET) CURTAINS FOR MODERN ARCHITECTURE? PRIVACY, NUISANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

A nuisance case, with engaging facts, attracted unusual popular attention: 'Fearn v Trustees of the Tate Gallery' [2019] EWHC 246 (Ch). The claims were brought by owners of four thirteenth- to twenty-first-floor flats in central London. The flats' living areas were glazed from floor to ceiling with "rather splendid" panoramic views. "Unfortunately" as Mann J. said at [8], "if occupants can see out then outsiders can see in (absent some protective measure), which is the problem in this case". Specifically, the owner-occupants complained that an exterior viewing platform on the tenth floor of the adjacent Tate Modern art gallery was an actionable nuisance and also violated their human right to privacy (under Art. 8, ECHR). The evidence showed hundreds of thousands of visitors to the viewing platform per year. The judge held that a "significant number" of these "demonstrate a visual interest in the interiors of the flats", including peering, waving and photographing (at [85]). He commented (ibid.) that "their numbers and the level of interest is such that a homeowner would reasonably regard to be intrusive".