Last year saw the High Court in Fearn & ors v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery  EWHC 246 (Ch) make an arguably ground-breaking ruling that overlooking can constitute a nuisance in the right circumstances. It went on to find that, on balance, 600,000 visitors per year being able to look into the living areas of individuals (as well as film them, take pictures, etc) does not fall within what constitutes "the right circumstances", as the claimants chose to live in glass flats and could just put net curtains up (because who wouldn't want those in a modern City flat?) to prevent the overlooking.
I wrote an article for the Property Law Journal on this case last year (full article here), in which I concluded that, as things stand, and unless the claimants succeed on appeal, then it is unlikely that this case would open the floodgates to an array of overlooking nuisance claims, as overlooking itself, even to the extent the claimants are subjected to, is clearly not enough.
Round 2 has kicked off. Today was day 1 of the appeal and if you are as excited as I am to see where this is going then you can watch all the fun action LIVE on YouTube (reality TV I can get behind!) - Fearn & others –v- The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
Where do you draw the line between what constitutes an actionable nuisance? If you get planning consent for the erection of a balcony overlooking your neighbour's land - can your neighbour bring a claim for nuisance because it diminishes the value of her land and on the basis of overlooking?