> Tate Modern had high hopes for the 10th floor of the Blatnavik Building with its cafe and a four-sided observation terrace with excellent views of the Thames. Alas it also had great views into the apartments at Neo Bankside whose residents ultimately sued and won, thus if you arrive by lift today you can only visit the cafe.

I was curious about what type of arguments you could make to win a case like this.

"The Supreme Court commented that the degree of overlooking from visitors to the Tate gallery was so extreme it subjected the residents to being “much like being on display in a zoo” and held that there is no reason why constant visual intrusion cannot give rise to liability for nuisance."

https://www.tlt.com/insights-and-events/insight/supreme-cour...

Really strange take, that applies to so many situations where tourists gather

▲

meindnoch 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

British people don't have curtains?

▲

RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It affected rich people, wouldn't surprise me if one of them knew the judge.

▲

fontain an hour ago | parent [-]

The case was a very big deal in London. The outcome was not one of bias, but complicated circumstance.

The apartment building was built years before the Tate Modern opened their viewing floor. After the Tate Modern viewing floor opened, visitors to the Tate Modern began photographing and videoing and watching people in the neighbouring apartment building.

The judge reasonably determined that there is some sacrifice of privacy made when choosing to live in a glass apartment building, but the Tate Modern's viewing floor's compromise of privacy was so egregious that it should not be allowed regardless of planning permission.

There are many buildings all over London that look over one another, many of those occupied by very very rich people, it was not corruption.

	▲	therealdrag0 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How can privacy be egregiously violated? Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
	▲	ZeWaka an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		However, Tate got the permission to build the viewing deck before the apartments were built.

▲

l23k4 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Come on, this was just gross by Tate and the supreme court was right to put a stop to it. I visited the extension before it opened, it was obvious this was going to be a problem.

A busy viewing terrace is not an ordinary use of space, building one looking right into private homes isn't cool regardless of how wealthy the residents of those homes are.

	▲	therealdrag0 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Can’t all tall buildings see into neighboring buildings? I’ve often seen into peoples houses and watched them eat dinner etc.

▲

gib444 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Supreme Court judges do not express "takes". They make legal judgements and express legal opinion based on years of experience and deep knowledge of the law. They deserve a bit more respect than a likening to some random Redditor having a "take"

▲

ZeWaka an hour ago | parent [-]

Note that this comment does not apply to every country.

	▲	gib444 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Good thing the post is about the UK and we here are capable of staying on topic