‘Being on display in a zoo’: An arguable case of nuisance: 'Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery' [2023] UKSC 4
The UK Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited 'Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery' (Fearn) judgment, with a 3:2 majority finding the Tate Modern (Tate) liable in private nuisance for allowing its visitors to peer into the claimant-residents’ flats. The claimants owned flats...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4342 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | The UK Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited 'Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery' (Fearn) judgment, with a 3:2 majority finding the Tate Modern (Tate) liable in private nuisance for allowing its visitors to peer into the claimant-residents’ flats. The claimants owned flats in a development that had a mainly-glass façade. Since 2016 the Tate operated a gallery overlooking London, roughly parallel to the claimants’ residences. Gallery visitors were thus able to look into the flats, and numerous photographs of the flat interiors were posted on social media. The claimants primarily sought an injunction requiring the Tate to prevent the public from viewing their flats. |
|---|