The observation ‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’ is often quoted as an example of judicial snootiness. So plaudits to Lord Leggatt, in his magisterial lead judgment in the Tate viewing gallery case, for putting the right context around Lord Justice Alfred Thesiger’s words in Sturges v Bridgman (1879).

Belgrave Square road sign, London

Source: Alamy 

Thesiger was not ‘as is sometimes mistakenly supposed, suggesting that inhabitants of an upmarket neighbourhood are entitled to greater legal protection than those of a poorer neighbourhood’, Leggatt said. Rather he was answering a hypothetical point about the ‘tanneries of Bermondsey’ raised by counsel for one Mr Bridgman, whose confectionery business was causing a nuisance to his Belgravia neighbour. (The nuisance claim succeeded, incidentally – as did that brought by the Neo Bankside residents against Tate Modern.)

Obiter is glad that’s been cleared up. Though you’d be hard pressed to find any tanneries amid the galleries, bars and restaurants of Bermondsey nowadays.

Topics