In our previous update , we outlined the Supreme Court’s decision that the Tate’s use of the viewing gallery, which allowed visitors to look into and photograph their neighbours’ flats, went beyond the “common and ordinary” use of the property such that the resulting “overlooking” amounted to a nuisance.
The Supreme Court then referred the dispute back to the High Court to decide on the appropriate remedy.
The usual remedies for nuisance are either an injunction – to prevent the behaviour causing a nuisance – or damages in lieu of an injunction to compensate for the damage caused by it.
The Neo Bankside flat owners declined to pursue damages and instead the Tate has given an undertaking not to allow the viewing gallery to be used in a way which allows visitors to “engage in intrusive viewing or photography” of particular flats.
In practice, this means that the Tate’s viewing gallery is not open on the side closest to Neo Bankside, and there are various signs in place asking visitors not to take photographs of residential areas.
What does this mean for the law of nuisance?
The reasonable behaviour by both parties to this dispute is the perfect illustration of the core of the Supreme Court’s judgment: that there should be give and take between neighbours, and each should tolerate the other’s common and ordinary use of its property, but no more.
Authored by Tim Reid and Lucy Redman.
