好色先生TV

The residents of RSHP鈥檚 Neo Bankside flats have returned to court, arguing that the judge who threw out their objections to Tate Modern鈥檚 viewing deck was wrong.

They hope to overturn that judgment and put a stop to the 鈥渟nooping鈥� by visitors at the gallery鈥檚 Herzog & de Meuron-designed extension.

They say that Mr Justice Mann鈥檚 鈥渕ental exercise鈥� in which he imagined them living not in a building with floor-to-ceiling windows but one with 鈥渟ignificant vertical and perhaps horizontal breaks to interrupt the inward view鈥� was 鈥渉opelessly lacking in definition鈥�.

And they say that he was wrong to have invented a legal principle that they could not establish a nuisance in law if a disturbance with the enjoyment of their homes is caused only because of the building鈥檚 design 鈥� namely the huge areas of glazing.

He used that principle to dismiss their claims in the High Court in February 2019, a ruling the residents are now attempting to overturn in the Court of Appeal.

They want the Tate to shut the 10^th-floor wraparound viewing gallery, or at least the part that overlooks their homes. They complain that the invasion of privacy is blighting their lives.

The Tate trustees鈥� defence is that the residents bought the flats in full knowledge that a tourist attraction was to be built next door 鈥� and that simple net curtains could solve the problem.

In the original case, the judge proposed an imaginary building with smaller windows to test arguments about the legal nature of 鈥渘uisance鈥�.

This week鈥檚 hearing focused on whether the Stirling prize-shortlisted flats were 鈥渁bnormally sensitive to invasions of privacy鈥� due to their floor-to-ceiling windows and being located adjacent to the Tate鈥檚 viewing gallery allowing people to look in.

The residents, whose homes range in value from 拢2m to 拢19m, are seeking to overturn his ruling on a number of grounds.

The defendants are arguing, among other things, that the problems would not have arisen if louvres had been added as set out in the original drawings. A second set of drawings was submitted and approved omitting many of the louvres.

鈥淎 significant reduction in these protective measures 鈥檇isappeared without comment鈥�,鈥� they noted.

They also argued that since the claimants had 鈥渙pted for a design of flat and lifestyle choice which invited the privacy invasion, then they had created their own sensitivity and would have to tolerate what the design had created鈥�.

No date has been given for when the court鈥檚 decision is to be expected.