Flat owners next to Tate Modern win privacy case over viewing platform as Supreme Court rules in their favour

Owners of four luxury flats overlooked by the Tate Modern’s public viewing platform have won their long-running privacy case at the Supreme Court.

Neo Bankside residents said “hundreds of thousands” of visitors to the world-famous London gallery were looking into their homes in a “relentless” invasion of privacy.

They wanted the gallery to cordon off parts of the platform or put up screens.

The High Court and Court of Appeal sided with the gallery, but the residents took the case to the Supreme Court and on Wednesday it ruled 3-2 in their favour.

It said a viewing gallery was not a normal use of the gallery’s land and that it was a legal “nuisance” to the flat owners who couldn’t properly enjoy their property.

The properties have floor-to-ceiling windows and the Supreme Court’s Lord Leggatt likened it to “being on display in a zoo”.

“Inviting members of the public to look out from a viewing gallery is manifestly a very particular and exceptional use of land,” he said.

“It cannot even be said to be a necessary or ordinary incident of operating an art museum.”

Shortly after the platform opened in 2016, the gallery’s former boss suggested owners simply put up blinds or curtains and claimed people buying flats were aware the platform was due to open.

But Lord Leggatt said residents “cannot be obliged to live behind net curtains or with their blinds drawn all day” to protect themselves from prying eyes.

He also said the Court of Appeal had made legal errors when dismissing a bid for injunction and damages.

Flats in the block – situated next to the Thames on the South Bank – go for a premium price, with a three-bed currently on the market for £3.4m.

Nearly six years after the claim began, it will now go back to the High Court to find a solution for the flat owners.

“Our clients now look forward to working with the Tate as valued neighbours to find a practical solution which protects all of their interests,” said solicitor Natasha Rees from law firm Forsters.