scholarly journals Ecospeak in Transnational Environmental Tort Proceedings

2015 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Tort

scholarly journals Sensitivity in the law of nuisance: Should people in glass houses expect voyeurs? Fearn v Tate Gallery [2019] EWHC 246 (Ch)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Hilson
Keyword(s):  
Case Note ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Environmental Tort ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Law

The case Fearn v Tate Gallery involved claims brought by luxury London flat owners for breach of privacy in relation to the Tate Modern’s nearby viewing platform. One of the key issues in the case, heard by Mann J in the High Court, was whether the floor-to-ceiling glass windows of the flats – through which members of the public on the viewing platform could easily gaze – meant the residents were unduly sensitive users of the land for the purposes of the tort of nuisance. This case note considers this question along with the principle in nuisance that it is normally no defence to say that the claimant came to the nuisance. Both sensitivity and the coming to the nuisance (non-) defence are important elements of nuisance as an environmental tort and hence the case is worthy of note for environmental lawyers.

scholarly journals Adjudicating environmental tort cases in China: burden of proof, causation, and insights from 513 court decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Yang ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Hao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Evaluation Report ◽  
Economies In Transition ◽  
Environmental Tort ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
Judicial Remedies ◽  
National Environmental ◽  
Different Levels

Developing countries and countries with economies in transition have varying experiences in enforcing their national environmental law. China's judicial interpretations and legislation on environmental protection have established the rules that shift the burden of proof for causation in environmental tort litigation. However, this study of 513 court decisions from the people's courts at different levels in China shows that although the court decisions usually refer to or quote the rules that shift the burden of proof, in most cases the victim-plaintiffs still bear the liability to prove whether the causal relationship exists between the pollution and the harm. This study also finds that Chinese courts defer greatly to the evaluation report in proving causation. It suggests that the court practice of adjudicating environmental tort cases in China values more the factual causation of a pollution incident than the provisions regarding proof of causation stipulated by relevant laws. Consequently, such judicial practices hinder the effectiveness of judicial remedies for pollution victims in China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document