Nicholas Dobson dissects the nuisance case that hit the headlines and shocked art aficionados, Fearn v Tate Gallery Trustees, in this week’s NLJ.
Nobody wants to live under constant observation, but were the owners of luxury flats designed as glass cubes and situated a stone’s throw from Tate Modern’s Blavatnik Building extension over-sensitive? Should they have simply closed their blinds to keep out the prying eyes of Tate visitors and their smartphone cameras?
The Supreme Court thought not, in a judgment that goes to the heart of the meaning of ‘common and ordinary use’.
RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
