The Tate Modern opened an extension in 2016 called the Blavatnik Building. The Blavatnik building is ten stories high and, on its top floor, has a viewing platform which offers panoramic views of London. The Appellants own flats neighbouring the Tate Modern which are of a similar elevation to the Blavatnik building and whose walls are mainly made of glass. On the southside of the viewing platform, visitors to the Tate can see directly into the flats of the Appellants.
The Appellants seek an injunction requiring the Tate to prevent its visitors from viewing their flats from the viewing platform, or alternatively, an award of damages. Their claim is based on the common law of nuisance.

An oral contract was made between the First Respondent, Mr Barton, and the Fourth Respondent, Foxpace Ltd ("Foxpace"), who owned a property called Nash House which it wanted to sell. The first instance judge found that the express terms of the oral contract were that if Mr Barton introduced to Foxpace a purchaser who bought Nash House for £6.5 million, Foxpace would pay Mr Barton £1.2 million. Mr Barton introduced Western UK Acton Ltd ("Western") to Foxpace. Documents were drawn up for the sale of Nash House to Western for £6.55 million. However, it came to light that Nash House fell within an area safeguarded for the purpose of the construction of the HS2 rail link. As a result, Western acquired Nash House for £6 million plus VAT. Since the oral contract between Foxpace and Mr Barton made no provision as to what would happen if Nash House was sold for anything less than £6.5 million, Foxpace argued there was no obligation to pay anything to Mr Barton. Accordingly, Mr Barton brought a claim for the reasonable value of his services.
The first instance judge held that Mr Barton was not entitled to any payment. The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Barton’s appeal and held that he was entitled to reasonable remuneration for his services. Morris & another (in place of Mr Gwyn-Jones, deceased) appeals to the Supreme Court.