Fearn & Ors v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery

Fearn & Ors v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery

Mere overlooking, even if substantial, is not actionable as private nuisance at common law. The cause of action for nuisance does not extend to invasion of privacy by overlooking, and Article 8 ECHR does not require such an extension. The appropriate remedy for overlooking is through planning law or legislative intervention, not the courts. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Giles Fearn; Appellant/claimant: Gerald Kraftman; Appellant/claimant: Helen McFadyen; Appellant/claimant: Lindsay Urquhart; Appellant/claimant: Ian McFadyen; Respondent/defendant: The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Overlooking, Privacy, Article 8 ECHR, Planning Law
Property Law Tort Law Human Rights Private Nuisance Overlooking Privacy Article 8 ECHR Planning Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giles Fearn

Appellant/claimant

Gerald Kraftman

Appellant/claimant

Helen McFadyen

Appellant/claimant

Lindsay Urquhart

Appellant/claimant

Ian McFadyen

Appellant/claimant

The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is mere overlooking actionable as private nuisance?
  2. 2 Should the common law of nuisance be extended to protect privacy from overlooking?
  3. 3 Does Article 8 ECHR require the extension of nuisance to cover overlooking?

Ratio Decidendi

Mere overlooking, even if substantial, is not actionable as private nuisance at common law. The cause of action for nuisance does not extend to invasion of privacy by overlooking, and Article 8 ECHR does not require such an extension. The appropriate remedy for overlooking is through planning law or legislative intervention, not the courts. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed