A really interesting case summary by my colleague Jake who is brand new to the profession but already demonstrating a real passion for the law.
The Ring case brings to the fore the question of privacy in the property context. This isn’t about super-injunctions protecting footballers and celebrities but normal people going about their everyday lives.
As it currently stands, the law of nuisance doesn’t protect privacy but that could be about to change when the Supreme Court considers the appeal in the Tate Modern case (Fearn and Ors v. Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery) next month.
Predicting the outcome of any visit to the legal casino that is the highest court in our land is far from easy but I am going to put my neck on the line and say the dice should fall differently this time. You heard it here first, the law of nuisance may be about to change…
If you would like to know more about the law of nuisance or what its' implications are please contact myself or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys advisor.
The claim for nuisance caused by loss of privacy was rejected by the Court because it found it was bound by a well known Court of Appeal decision in Fearn and Ors v.Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2020] EWCA Civ 104. That case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and is due to be heard in December 2021. In that decision, the Court of Appeal held that overlooking from one property to another is not capable of giving rise to a cause of action in nuisance.
unknownx500
