Concerned about a breach of your privacy? Consider some well-placed tall plants...

Owning a multi-million pound apartment in the heart of London, with floor to ceiling windows boasting views of the best landmarks the city has to offer, is the stuff of lottery-winning dreams. But what if a viewing platform was erected only 34 metres away from your dream apartment? You might just consider spending your imaginary millions on a tree-lined country estate instead.

When an enclosed walkway around all four sides of the Tate Modern's South Bank building opened in 2016, residents of the Neo Bankside development sought an injunction requiring the gallery to cordon off parts of the platform or erect screening. Unsurprisingly, they weren't keen on hundreds of thousands of visitors peering into their living rooms. The residents complained of "near constant surveillance" and claimed the use of the platform was a breach of their article 8 right to privacy under the Human Rights Act and created a nuisance.

Unfortunately for the residents, the High Court rejected their claim and ruled that they "created or submitted themselves to sensitivity to privacy which is greater than would be the case of a less-glassed design".

The judge added that "...no doubt there are great advantages to be enjoyed in such extensive glassed views, but that in effect comes at a price in terms of privacy". Furthermore, as the claimants had adapted the 'winter garden' area of their apartments into living accommodation, they had "created their own additional sensitivity to the inward gaze".  The 'winter gardens' were essentially quasi-balconies and were not originally intended as part of the living accommodation.  The judge reflected that "one does not expect so much privacy in a balcony, even one as high as these".

This case is also a potentially landmark one, as  the Judge held that breach of privacy could, in appropriate cases,be the basis for an action in nuisance( although this was not the position here).  The judge concluded that, "if it did not do so before the Human Rights Act, since that Act the law of nuisance ought to be, and is, capable of protecting privacy rights from overlooking in an appropriate case".  However, this is little consolation to the residents of the development that lost their High Court battle.  As the occupiers of flats which benefit from floor to ceiling windows, it was deemed that the residents had submitted themselves to sensitivity to privacy.  The judge therefore concluded that "it would be wrong to allow this self-induced incentive to gaze, and to infringe privacy, and self-induced exposure to the outside world, to create a liability in nuisance". 

So what is the solution for the residents who have to tolerate visitors peering in at them (sometimes with binoculars!), taking photographs and making obscene gestures? The answer is a simple one according to the judge...consider some well-placed tall plants or lower the blinds.