Andrew Francis takes a good look at Fearn v Tate Gallery Trustees: what lessons can property practitioners learn from the Supreme Court’s judgment?
- The Supreme Court’s majority judgment in Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery held the Tate liable in nuisance to the owners of flats who claimed visual intrusion by those visiting the Tate’s public viewing platform.
- This decision opens the way to consideration of the relationship between private nuisance and property law rights and obligations.
‘On the facts found by the judge, this is a straightforward case of nuisance’ (per Lord Leggatt, at para [7] in Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, [2023] All ER (D) 02 (Feb) (‘Fearn’)).
That simple statement is as good an introduction to the judgments in Fearn as one is likely to get. It forms a useful entry to the 133 paragraphs of the majority judgment and the 150 paragraphs of the minority
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
