VISUAL INTRUSION, PUBLIC INTERESTS AND PRIVATE NUISANCE: FEARN V TATE

Questions about the proper place of tort are not new, and technological, social and regulatory change frequently challenge private nuisance. In 'Fearn v Board of Trustees of Tate Gallery' [2023] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court goes out of its way to emphasise the simplicity with which the ancien...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cambridge law journal 2023-07, Vol.82 (2), p.208-211
Main Author: Lee, Maria
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adjoining landowners
Case and Comment
Intrusion
Jurisprudence
Nuisances
Principles
Privacy
Privacy, Right of
Public interest
Social networks
Torts
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Questions about the proper place of tort are not new, and technological, social and regulatory change frequently challenge private nuisance. In 'Fearn v Board of Trustees of Tate Gallery' [2023] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court goes out of its way to emphasise the simplicity with which the ancient tort of private nuisance can be applied to what it describes as a "straightforward case of nuisance", in which "developments in technology" play a significant role (at [7], [103]). For all its purported simplicity, however, it took nearly 14 months to hand down a split judgment running to 283 paragraphs. The High Court ([2019] EWHC 246 (Ch)) and Court of Appeal ([2020] Ch 621) moreover, reached the opposite result from the Supreme Court, each for different reasons.
ISSN:0008-1973
1469-2139
DOI:10.1017/S0008197323000260