Study Notes
Key Case | Fearn v Tate Gallery (2019) | Nuisance - Location
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 9 Oct 2020
When determining unreasonableness in nuisance, the nature and character of the locality will be taken into consideration.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Owner of flats adjacent to the Tate Modern
Defendant: Owner of the Tate Modern Museum
Facts: The Tate Modern installed a walkway around the 10th floor in an extension so that visitors could enjoy a 360-degree panoramic view around London. Adjacent to this walkway was a block of flats and those using the walkway could see directly into the living areas of the flats. One resident noted 84 people taking photos in the direction of the flats in one 90-minute period.
Outcome: Not Liable
Legal principle: The flats and the viewing platform were developed at roughly the same time and the flat developers offered support for the Tate Gallery extension. The claimants who purchased the flats have purchased property which is largely glazed and open, it would be wrong to allow this to then be a claim in nuisance. The flats were purchased in an inner-city urban environment, with significant tourist activity, this was significant to the outcome.