header-logo header-logo

29 March 2024
Issue: 8065 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Nuisance
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Knotty problems with a big impact for nuisance

166024
From Fearn v Tate to a series of Japanese knotweed cases, the law of nuisance has made frequent appearances in the courts of late

In this week’s NLJ, John Campbell and James Saunders trace recent developments in this area of common law.

They note that Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4 (the case involving Tate Modern’s viewing platform directly overlooking luxury flats with floor-to-ceiling glass windows) and the knotweed cases ‘represent evolution, rather than revolution, in the law’.

Campbell and Saunders, of New Square Chambers, write: ‘The Fearn appeal passed from the High Court, through the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court with different reasoning at each stage, highlighting the difficulties of identifying the boundaries of nuisance and applying the traditional approach that was ultimately reinstated in the Supreme Court.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll