Neighbours of Tate win legal battle over loss of privacy
Supreme Court backs occupants of glass-walled flats opposite ‘nuisance’ public viewing gallery
TATE MODERN may have to close off part of a controversial viewing platform after losing a legal battle over the privacy of neighbours in nearby luxury flats.
Residents of glass-walled flats oppossite the Tate took legal action in 2017 to close off a platform that has allowed tourists to peer into their homes and take photographs, but this was dismissed and they were told by one judge to put up blinds or net curtains.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that the flat owners should not have to hide behind curtains or live as if “on display in a zoo”, finding that the Tate’s viewing platform is a “nuisance” and the gallery must remedy the invasion of privacy. It has emerged that judges cited a medieval legal wrangle, involving a fishmonger being forced to dismantle a watchtower overlooking his neighbour’s land, to support the judgment handed down yesterday.
Lawyers for the residents have said that one way to resolve the row would be for the gallery to cordon off part of the platform facing the affected flats, or erect screening to block the view.
Lord Leggatt delivered the judgment, which stated something needed to be done because “the claimants’ flats are under near constant observation by visitors to the viewing platform. There are hundreds of thousands of spectators each year and many take photos and post them on social media”.
The panoramic Blavatnik viewing platform was opened in 2016, allowing the Tate’s then 500,000 annual visitors to look out across London, and also through the wall-to-ceiling windows of flats in the nearby Neo Bankside development, which was built in 2012.
In 2017, five residents – Ian and Helen Mcfayden, Giles Fearn, Gerald Kraftman, and Lindsay Urquart – sought an injunction to have parts of the platform closed, claiming that it had turned their lives into “a public exhibit”.
Architect Ms Urquart previously stated she felt “exposed” in the shadow of the Tate, and Mr Mcfayden felt obliged to be “properly dressed” at all times beneath the public gaze.
Clare Fearn, another resident, said “obscene gestures” were made by people on the platform, and neighbour Gerald Kraftman felt uncomfortable having his grandchildren visit while they could be observed from above.
In 2019, the High Court rejected the residents’ claim, with a judge suggesting that residents “invited” problems by choosing to live in central London flats with floor-to-ceiling windows, noting that blinds or net curtains could be used to ensure privacy.
In 2020, there was another setback for residents, when the Court of Appeal took the view that one building simply overlooking another could not be deemed a common law “nuisance”, the kind of issue that impinges on people enjoying their property, such as neighbours playing their music too loud.
The Supreme Court has now found fault with previous rulings, and a judgment passed down yesterday stated that the Tate’s use of the platform does fall under “nuisance”, as it “wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land”.
A legal case from 1341, which forced a London fishmonger called John le Leche to remove a tower overlooking neighbour’s land and “private affairs”, was cited to support the judgment. The judgment also noted that it was not for residents to use blinds or curtains to block the view into their homes, but for the Tate to take action to remedy the loss of privacy. This may be done through the residents’ past proposal of erecting screens or cordoning off western sections of the panoramic platform which face their flats. The High Court is set to decide at a later date on what action should be taken.
Residents have welcomed the judgment, and their legal team will work with the Tate to try and find a solution to the problem of the platform.
Natasha Rees, of the legal firm Forster, said: “Our clients are both pleased and relieved that nearly six years after they began their claim the Supreme Court has now found in their favour. Lord Leggatt, giving the majority judgment, recognised how oppressive it can be to live ‘under constant observation from the Tate’s viewing gallery for much of the day, every day of the week… much like being on display in a zoo’. Our clients now look forward to working with the Tate as valued neighbours to find a practical solution which protects all of their interests.”
A Tate spokesman said: “We thank the Supreme Court for their careful consideration of this matter. The Supreme Court has referred the case back to the High Court and as the case is ongoing we cannot comment further.”
What should people who live in glass houses do? Go all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems. Some dwellers in flats with glass walls were mighty put out when Tate Modern, in London, opened a viewing gallery 100ft from them. The court has now agreed it was a nuisance. It was not speaking loosely but establishing that to erect a sort of prospect point opposite a bedroom window can be a technical nuisance or tort interfering with someone’s enjoyment of their property. Not the least intriguing element in the judgment was the citation of a case brought by a woman in 1341 against a London fishmonger called John le Leche, who had to undertake to dismantle a lead watchtower that spied on her private doings. The Tate now knows that, even if all life is art, it is not all freely open to view.