…shouldn’t sue the Tate Gallery?

It may only be mid-February but I think this decision is already a candidate for the most unusual case of 2019.

In theory glass walls are the epitome of modern chic and an attractive prospect for any self-respecting millionaire on the hunt for a luxury apartment close to the river Thames. Unfortunately the buyers forgot about one key element: their prospective neighbours, the Tate Gallery. You see, if you’ve ever been to the Tate Gallery you’ll know that there is a platform from which you get a spectacular view of the capital….and the inside of some luxury homes.

With tourists peering in and taking pictures all day long the residents decided to take action and sued the gallery in the tort of nuisance as well as for a breach of their right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Unsurprisingly those argument didn’t fly and the judge had a pretty straightforward solution to offer: draw the blinds! After all these claimants had chosen to live in the houses so shouldn’t be too astonished when people decide to look in. Privacy claims such as this require a balance between both parties’ reasonable use of the land and on this basis there is no real reasonable expectation of privacy.

Et al.

The latest episode of the podcast looks at the balance needed between strong criminal record checks and the rehabilitation of offenders. We’re up to 100 iTunes reviews at which point I promised I would stop harassing listeners at the end of episodes so hooray and thank you!
https://uklawweekly.com/2019-uksc-3/