Fearn and others v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery  EWCA Civ 104
Overlooking by a neighbour does not fall within the tort of private nuisance.
Overlooking by a neighbour does not fall within the tort of private nuisance.
The appellants (F) owned flats in a development adjacent to the Tate Modern art gallery (Tate) in central London. F’s living areas (which had floor-to-ceiling windows) looked directly onto a viewing gallery which was open to visitors to the Tate and provided 360 degree panoramic views of London. F alleged that they were the subject of close scrutiny by many visitors, including the use of binoculars or phones or cameras with zoom lenses (with resulting photographs or films posted on social media sites).
F brought a claim against the Tate for private nuisance, seeking an injunction requiring the Tate to close the relevant part of the gallery.
Could F bring a claim against the Tate in nuisance for overlooking?
There are no reported cases where a claimant has been successful in a nuisance action for overlooking by a neighbour. There have, however, been cases in which judges have decided that no such cause of action exists. These cases establish the principle that an invasion of privacy by overlooking is not actionable as a private nuisance. Unlike other annoyances (e.g. noise, dirt, fumes, noxious smells and vibrations) emanating from neighbouring property, it would be difficult, in the case of overlooking, to determine objectively whether there had been a material interference with the amenity value of the affected land (a requirement for this type of nuisance claim to be established).
The real issue in cases of overlooking is invasion of privacy, rather than damage to property interests (the essence of the tort of nuisance). There are other laws which bear on privacy (e.g. confidentiality, misuse of private information, data protection, harassment and stalking) and it was better to leave it to parliament to formulate any further laws felt necessary to deal with overlooking (rather than to extend the law of private nuisance).
Points to note/consider
- The original High Court decision last year caused quite a stir. In that case, the judge ruled (to the surprise of many) that overlooking a home can constitute a nuisance in some instances (although not in this case, where he felt that F’s exposure was self-induced and that F could adapt their homes to prevent the overlooking). The Court of Appeal’s decision, however, reasserts conventional wisdom
- This decision is good news for developers building in ever more crowded towns and cities. Pending any appeal to the Supreme Court, they have the comfort of knowing that as long as they have obtained planning permission (and other requisite consents) for the development in question, then no claim can be brought against them merely because the development overlooks an adjoining property or interferes with the privacy of adjoining property owners. From an adjoining property owner’s perspective, if they have any objections to a development based on overlooking, it is important to raise them at the planning stage (the Court of Appeal felt that the planning system was a more appropriate form of control than enlarging the right to bring actions for nuisance at common law).
You may be interested in...
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
How to manage supply contracts and avoid disputes
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Mediation – remote or in person?
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd  EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
The Future of Mediation
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
Common AI related technology project disputes and how to prevent them
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) proposed reforms to the Pre-Action Protocols (PAPs) and the possible mandatory ADR gateway. What could this mean for your case?
In November 2021, The Civil Justice Council’s published its interim report on proposed changes to the current Pre-Action Protocols, which included a mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) gateway. In this article, we look at proposed reforms and consider what this could mean for your case.
Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
Sole director decisions: Another perspective
Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
Proceed with caution – covenants in franchise agreements
In the recent case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited and ano’r  EWCA Civ 889, the Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of restrictive covenants in a franchise agreement.
The Damages Claims Portal - A brief introduction for clients
Wide interpretation of “detriment” caused victimisation claim to succeed
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Warburton v The Chief Constable.
Restrictive Covenants – are changes coming?
Restrictive covenants are widely recognised as a complex area of employment law that is of key importance to many organisations. However more recently, they have become a hot topic with the Government launching their consultation.
Aarhus legal costs in environmental claims
Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
Four top tips to avoid disputes when entering into service level agreements with suppliers
We regularly encounter disputes relating to Service Level Agreement provisions - here we provide four top tips that you can use to minimise disputes.
Revisions to the Highway Code and potential impact on civil liability
The Highway Code has had its first major revision since 2007. Amongst several changes, a new hierarchy has been created, with road users who are most likely to cause harm having the greatest responsibility to reduce the threat they may pose to other road users (rule 204 of the Code).
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Preparing for 2022 – the big issues for legal teams across health and social care
We were delighted to be joined by Dr Nigel Sturrock, Regional Medical Director for the Midlands at NHS England and NHS Improvement. He gave an overview of the pressures placed on the NHS by the pandemic, including the impact on urgent and emergency care, elective procedures and staffing.