London art gallery viewing terrace deemed a ‘nuisance’ by UK courtExBulletin

The owners of flats (seen right) opposite the Tate Modern have won a privacy case against the famous art gallery.

SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

hide title

change the subtitles

SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The owners of flats (seen right) opposite the Tate Modern have won a privacy case against the famous art gallery.

SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

For the past six years, tourists to London’s Tate Modern who wandered up to the 10th floor could catch a glimpse of one of the gallery’s most unusual attractions: the luxury apartments across the street.

Now that unofficial exhibition may soon close.

After a years-long legal battle, Britain’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the gallery had violated privacy and nuisance laws. The case has been returned to a lower court to determine the appropriate legal remedy, which may include an injunction and damages in favor of the residents of the apartment.

Lord George Leggatt, who wrote the 3-2 majority opinion, wrote that if the parties cannot agree on a settlement on their own, further hearings may be needed.

Tate Modern’s observation deck has served as a popular selfie spot since it opened as part of the Blavatnik Building in 2016. Guests who go to the top of the tower can take in panoramic views of St Paul’s Cathedral, the Leadenhall Building and the houses of Parliament.

And then there is the Neo Bankside apartment building, which is approximately 110 meters away. Its elegant architectural design of floor-to-ceiling glass windows and fresh open-plan living areas maximize natural light while minimizing privacy.

A look at the London skyline as seen from the terrace of Tate Modern on October 27, 2016.

Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

hide title

change the subtitles

Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

A look at the London skyline as seen from the terrace of Tate Modern on October 27, 2016.

Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

A small sign on the wall of the Tate terrace gently reminds guests to respect their neighbours, but that hasn’t stopped some of the 5.5 million people who visit the gallery for free each year from peering into the daily routines of Rich. (A three bedroom unit it is currently listed for sale at over $3 million.)

Five residents of Neo Bankside sued Tate Modern in 2017 for what their lawyers described as state of “constant surveillance” and “extremely intense visual gaze.” The owners sought an order “requiring the gallery either to restrict access to portions of the terrace adjacent to their houses or to erect a screen.”

One resident once counted 84 people photographing the building over a 90-minute period, according to New York Times COVERAGE of the first round of sessions. He later revealed a photo of himself posted on an Instagram account with 1,027 followers.

The gallery, in its initial response, pointed out that building plans for the terrace were publicly available when the apartments went up for sale in 2012. A former Tate Modern director and an appeals court judge suggested the apartment owners could fix it easily the problem by hanging curtains.

The apartment owners, in turn, offered to pay for a screen to block the terrace, which Tate Modern refused. In an effort to limit viewing, the gallery reduced its platform’s opening hours.

In Wednesday’s ruling, Leggatt wrote that responsibility for fixing the problem rested with the gallery. Contrary to what two lower courts had ruled, the High Court found that the Tate was using its property in an abnormal way by inviting hundreds of thousands of people to the terrace each year.

Leggatt wrote that the occupants, on the other hand, “are doing no more than occupying and using their dwellings in the ordinary manner and in accordance with the ordinary habits of a reasonable person.”

“It is no answer for someone who interferes with that use using an exceptional use of their land to say that the claimants can be protected in their homes by taking remedial measures,” he added.

The court’s decision, which could set a precedent for Britain’s public spaces, is already drawing criticism for its deference to the comfort of the wealthy few over the joy of the masses.

“With this decision, the view of just five wealthy homeowners outweighs the enjoyment of the same view by millions of other people every year.” wrote a columnist for Guardian. “The insistence of some to live without curtains cancels out the use of one of the capital’s most exciting public spaces.”

A statement from the law firm representing the residents described the decision as “a powerful reaffirmation of the protection afforded by the common law to privacy in the home”.

“Our clients now look forward to working with Tate as valued neighbors to find a practical solution that protects all their interests,” said Natasha Rees, lead advocate for residents.

In a statement shared with NPR, Tate Modern thanked the court for its “careful consideration of this matter,” but said it could not comment further given that the case was ongoing.