In September 2025, the Western Cape High Court, in the matter between Phillips and Another v Bradbury, delivered a judgment which serves as an important reminder that security measures, including CCTV surveillance, must be balanced against neighbours’ constitutional rights to privacy and dignity.
The matter arose from a long-standing and acrimonious dispute between neighbouring property owners in Bakoven, Cape Town. The relationship between the parties had deteriorated over many years and had already resulted in various legal proceedings, including disputes over building plans, claims for damages, and allegations of harassment.
In June 2022, Bradbury became aware that two security cameras installed on the Phillips’ property had a clear and continuous line of sight into his private spaces, including his swimming pool, entertainment area, courtyard, and even a bedroom. As a result, he was forced to keep curtains permanently drawn to preserve his privacy. Correspondence between the parties confirmed the positioning of the cameras, and screenshots later demonstrated that significant portions of Bradbury’s property were under constant surveillance. Despite requests, the appellants refused to reposition the cameras.
The appellants contended that the cameras were installed for legitimate security purposes, citing crime concerns and the impact of load-shedding. Bradbury, however, argued that the surveillance amounted to an unlawful invasion of his privacy.
The High Court was required to determine whether the cameras unlawfully infringed Bradbury’s constitutional right to privacy. The decisive issue was not the mere presence of security cameras, but their line of sight into private areas of a neighbouring property.
The Court found that the cameras continuously monitored Bradbury’s courtyard, pool and entertainment areas. These spaces were described as inherently private, being areas where residents and their families engage in recreational activities, relax, entertain guests, and may reasonably expect freedom from observation. The Court emphasised that privacy rights are at their strongest in intimate and domestic settings, particularly where there is the potential for undress and close family interaction.
Although the appellants conceded that the cameras infringed Bradbury’s privacy, they argued that the intrusion was minimal and justified by security concerns. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the appellants had failed to consider or implement less intrusive alternatives such as alarm systems, electric fencing or repositioning the cameras to avoid overlooking private areas. Continuous visual surveillance of a neighbour’s recreational spaces was found to be disproportionate and unnecessary.
Importantly, the Court held that speculative or generalised concerns about crime cannot override a neighbour’s constitutional rights to privacy and dignity. Persistent monitoring of private areas constituted both an actionable nuisance under the common law and a violation of constitutional rights.
The appeal was dismissed, and the order requiring the removal or repositioning of the cameras, as well as prohibiting future installations with similar sightlines, was upheld.
While property owners are entitled to protect their homes, security measures must be carefully designed to avoid intruding into neighbouring private spaces. CCTV surveillance that overlooks a neighbour’s pool, entertainment area or similar private zones is likely to be unlawful, regardless of the intention behind it.