header-logo header-logo

Tate-à-tête?

27 June 2019 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7846 / Categories: Features , Public , Property
printer mail-detail

Is the Tate a public authority? Nicholas Dobson examines a recent ruling on nuisance & nosiness

  • Apartment owners overlooked by the Tate Modern’s viewing gallery had no right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998. There was also no actionable nuisance.

There’s always something, isn’t there? For biblical Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden would have been great if the serpent hadn’t turned up to poop the party. Roses would be fine but for the thorns. And we could live with morning wake-up alarms if they just gave up going off. But, as the eccentric philosopher noted in James Stephens’s comic novel The Crock of Gold in 1912: ‘Nothing is perfect’.

And so it was for the owners of four flats in a development adjacent to the Tate Modern Museum, whose prime views from prestige apartments unfortunately came with privacy issues. For their living areas are extensively glassed and look directly on to a new Tate Modern extension. And around the tenth floor of the extension a viewing walkway affords Tate Modern visitors

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll