header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Tate and neighbours

17 March 2023
Issue: 8017 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Public
printer mail-detail
114792
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’.

Read 'Tate-à-Tête (Pt 3)' here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll