{"id":1495,"date":"2023-03-30T09:30:38","date_gmt":"2023-03-30T08:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/religion-law-and-the-constitution\/?p=1495"},"modified":"2025-11-05T16:39:57","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T16:39:57","slug":"tort-nuisance-neighbours-and-fundamental-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/religion-law-and-the-constitution\/2023\/03\/30\/tort-nuisance-neighbours-and-fundamental-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Tort, Nuisance, Neighbours and Fundamental Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” fullwidth=”on” next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”322″][et_pb_fullwidth_menu global_parent=”322″ _builder_version=”3.17.6″ menu_id=”8″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” background_layout=”dark” module_class=”main-navigation” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”off” specialty=”on” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#1d1d1d”][et_pb_column type=”2_3″ specialty_columns=”2″][et_pb_row_inner locked=”off”][et_pb_column_inner type=”4_4″ saved_specialty_column_type=”2_3″][et_pb_post_title _builder_version=”3.17.6″ featured_placement=”above” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” date_format=”j M Y” \/][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”light” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n

\"Binoculars\"<\/p>\n

The Code of Hammurabi was composed in ancient Babylon, circa 1755-1750 BC.\u00a0\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, it contains provisions dealing with disputes between neighbours.\u00a0 Squabbles between people occupying adjoining land arise pretty constantly in all settled societies, and no doubt have been into the mists of prehistory.\u00a0\u00a0 Within the Common Law jurisdictions, the tort of nuisance is one mechanism used to balance conflicting rights in such disputes.\u00a0 In essence, this tort (civil wrong) applies where the defendant is interfering with the claimant\u2019s lawful use and enjoyment of their land.<\/p>\n

Drawing boundaries around this tort can be complicated, because living alongside other human beings means putting up with the noise, spectacles and even smells that they generate.\u00a0\u00a0 You might not love the fact that your neighbour cuts his grass wearing only flip-flops and a pair of speedos, but you can\u2019t sue him just because you don\u2019t like the sound and scent of the lawn-mower, or find the sight of a blob-fish in trunks a bit distasteful. So, at what point does everyday irritation tip over into unlawful behaviour?<\/p>\n

In most cases, causing some kind of tangible damage will attract liability.\u00a0 There are exceptions where the property being damaged is abnormally delicate, and the defendant\u2019s activities would not generate problems for the average occupant of the land or premises (e.g. In Robinson v Kilvert <\/em>1889, the plaintiff was storing a special species of paper which reacted badly to levels of heat which ordinary paper and other goods would have tolerated quite happily, and the court concluded that this should not be made the defendant\u2019s problem) but by and large, material harm will cross the threshold into liability.\u00a0\u00a0 Much more complex however, are the cases where the nuisance is intangible.\u00a0\u00a0 An interesting example of this came before the Supreme Court in Fearne and Others v The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery.<\/em><\/p>\n

The claimants in this case lived on the upper floors of the Neo Bankside residential and commercial development.\u00a0 The luxury flats on the South Bank of the Thames have floor to ceiling glass and boast spectacular views out over London.\u00a0 The design means that they are flooded with natural light and without doubt must be a stunning place to live and work.\u00a0\u00a0 The Tate Modern have a nearby building with a viewing gallery, allowing visitors a 360 degree panoramic view of the city, and a tiny taste of what it must be like to occupy a penthouse on the South Bank.\u00a0\u00a0 Between 500,000 and 600,000 people per year take advantage of this opportunity.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, a significant minority of these tourists do not confine themselves to looking out over the dome of St Paul\u2019s and the city vista, but peer into the claimants\u2019 homes, starring at them like pet sea-monkeys in a tank.\u00a0\u00a0 As if this were not bad enough, some visitors enhance their gawping capacity with binoculars, or take pictures of the flats and their inhabitants, posting these on social media.\u00a0\u00a0 Efforts by the Tate Modern to prevent such behaviour via signs and the intervention of security guards have been about as effective as the King Cnut tidal management policy, leading the claimants to bring an action in nuisance.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court was divided three to two in its response.\u00a0 Lord Leggatt, with whom Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones agreed found in favour of the homeowners\u2019 claim.\u00a0\u00a0 In his view, language of \u201creasonableness\u201d was inappropriate in the context of nuisance, at least for anything other than a shorthand way of describing the test for \u201cunlawful\u201d or \u201cundue\u201d use of land by a defendant.\u00a0\u00a0 The correct question was whether the defendant\u2019s conduct was outside of the ordinary for occupants of land in the relevant area, and if so, whether they caused a substantial interference to the claimant\u2019s ordinary use and enjoyment of the land.\u00a0\u00a0 On the basis that allowing hundreds of thousands of people access to a viewing platform could hardly be described as a usual activity, and that the impact of the gawking hoards on the property for residential purposes was substantial by any measure, the action in nuisance had to succeed.\u00a0\u00a0 Whether or not it was \u201creasonable\u201d for an art gallery to provide this kind of facility, or it was of public benefit, was completely immaterial.<\/p>\n

There is a certain logic to the point that philanthropic motives should not be a defence to harming your neighbour\u2019s interests.\u00a0\u00a0 However, as the dissenting judge Lord Sales noted (with Lord Kitchin in agreement) it was the claimant\u2019s choice to live with floor to ceiling glass, and not adopt curtains or other screening measures.\u00a0\u00a0 Lord Leggatt had dismissed this consideration, on the basis that the Common Law recognised the right of property owners to build however they choose, within extremely wide parameters, and that it is well established law that if the defendant is causing an actionable nuisance, it is not the responsibility of the claimant to take steps to ameliorate the situation.\u00a0\u00a0 Provided that the claimant is not abnormally sensitive, the nuisance is the defendant\u2019s problem.<\/p>\n

Lord Sales however adopted a fundamentally different approach to the nature and function of the tort of nuisance.\u00a0 He concentrated on its core purpose of balancing the competing interests of neighbours, where parties in conflict both had a right to benefit from their property.\u00a0 On this analysis, some give and take between neighbours is required, and it is fair to expect residents to take some basic measures to prevent third parties staring into their home if this bothers them.\u00a0\u00a0 In other words, if you opt to live in a glass box, and shun all modes of shielding, you are partly responsible for your own sea-monkification.<\/p>\n

The case is clearly a finely balanced one, and goes to the heart of the purpose of private law.\u00a0\u00a0 At what point can be expect the legal framework to step in and regulate the behaviour of people around us?\u00a0\u00a0 What should we be asked to give up for our neighbours, and vice versa?\u00a0\u00a0 Interestingly, one thing that both the Lord Leggatt and Lord Sales agreed upon, was that human rights law could not provide an answer in this instance.\u00a0\u00a0 More than one answer could be acceptable from a human rights perspective, it is ultimately a matter of what law through society determines to prioritse.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Related Links<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fearne v Others v Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.supremecourt.uk\/cases\/docs\/uksc-2020-0056-judgment.pdf<\/p>\n

Neo Bankside https:\/\/www.neobankside.com\/penthouses\/A1001-landing<\/a><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_post_nav _builder_version=”3.0.106″ in_same_term=”off” show_prev=”on” show_next=”on” prev_text=”Previous” next_text=”Next” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” \/][et_pb_comments _builder_version=”3.0.106″ show_avatar=”on” show_reply=”on” show_count=”on” background_layout=”light” header_font_size_tablet=”51″ header_line_height_tablet=”2″ custom_button=”on” button_icon_placement=”right” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_use_icon=”off” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” button_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_bg_color__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null” \/][et_pb_text admin_label=”Related posts” _builder_version=”3.0.106″ background_layout=”light” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n

Related<\/h1>\n

Related posts:<\/h3>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>

Brexit and British Identity<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/a>
<\/div>

Why do we pay MPs?<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/a>
<\/div>

Constitutional Approaches to Religion: Why there is no neutrality when it comes to faith and belief.<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column_inner][\/et_pb_row_inner][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_sidebar _builder_version=”3.0.106″ area=”sidebar-1″ orientation=”left” show_border=”off” background_layout=”light” locked=”on” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Connect Title” custom_padding=”0px||0px|” _builder_version=”3.0.90″ background_color=”#1d1d1d” module_class=”footer-section” prev_background_color=”#ffffff” global_module=”380″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” global_parent=”380″ locked=”off” allow_player_pause=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_2=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” parallax_3=”off” parallax_method_3=”off” make_fullwidth=”off” use_custom_width=”off” width_unit=”on” use_custom_gutter=”off” make_equal=”off” module_id=”footer-row” _builder_version=”3.0.89″][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Contact Us Title” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_text_color=”#ffffff” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

Contact Us<\/h4>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Contact Us” global_parent=”380″ text_text_color=”#aaaaaa” parent_locked=”off” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” module_class=”contact-us” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

+44 (0) 161 306 6000<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Find Us Title” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_text_color=”#ffffff” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

Find Us<\/h4>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Address” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_orientation=”left” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” module_id=”address” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

The University of Manchester
Oxford Rd
Manchester
M13 9PL
UK<\/a><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Connect Title” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_text_color=”#ffffff” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

Connect With Us<\/h4>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_code admin_label=”Social Media” global_parent=”380″ parent_locked=”off” _builder_version=”3.17.6″]<\/p>\n