CCTV surveillance outside residential home sparks neighbour dispute

CCTV and home surveillance equipment is a matter we get a lot of questions about at Warner Goodman. The recent case of Fairhurst v Woodard [2021] 10 WLUK 151 has gone through many of the issues around the installation and operation of CCTV on your property and how it may cause an actionable nuisance, harassment, or breach of the Data Protection Act 2018. Andrew Cullyer, Litigation, explains more below.

County court judgements are not binding on other courts and are the least authoritative, but HJ Clarke's decision is authoritative and detailed and will likely be followed in subsequent cases.

The facts were highly contested in this case, as the Defendant was found to be an unreliable witness. What is clear, however, was that the Defendant had installed several cameras and audio equipment outside their property that stretched far beyond their boundaries and intruded onto the Claimant's land.

The first general principle that can be drawn from this case is that if the field of view and audio recording capabilities of the cameras installed do not extend beyond the boundary of the property of their owner, they will likely be lawful.

The Claimant brought a claim with three causes of action:

• Harassment – An individual has a right not to be harassed by conduct on two or more occasions which is calculated in the objective sense to cause alarm or distress, which is objectively judged to be oppressive and unacceptable and capable of sustaining criminal liability. There would be a defence if this conduct were to prevent or detect crime and/or was reasonable in the particular circumstances.
• Nuisance – An individual has a right to enjoy their property without interference, and the cameras could amount to such interference.
• Data Protection –The Data Protection Act 2018 enshrines the UK version of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This defines personal data as any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual and sets out several restrictions on processing that data (processing includes video and audio recording). Such data must be processed:
  •  lawfully, fairly and transparently concerning the person being recorded;  
  • collected for explicit and legitimate purposes and not used for anything beyond those purposes;
  • adequate, relevant, and necessary concerning the legitimate purpose(s)

Harassment

The judge had no trouble finding that installing multiple cameras and recording video and audio over time amounted to a course of conduct.

Given the Defendant's conduct which included "…the lies, he told to support those lies…" the judge had no trouble finding that the behaviour was oppressive and unacceptable. 

The judge also remarked that "... level of belligerence, dishonesty, threats and oppressive behaviours exhibited by the Defendant over, initially, the course of a few days was unusual and alarming behaviour amounting to harassment."

In light of its factual findings, the Court found there was no basis for saying the installation of these cameras was for the detection or prevention of crime or was reasonable and found there had been harassment.

Standing back from the specifics of the case, it seems that installing cameras that record audio and video outside your property's boundary will rarely be harassment. It was only the extremely poor conduct of the Defendant that lead to the Court's finding in this case that it was.

Nuisance

The Court, in this case, found itself bound by authority from the Court of Appeal Fearn and Ors v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2020]. This judgement is currently being appealed, but for now, it is binding authority on the County Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the mere overlooking from one property to another could not constitute a private nuisance. This overlooking likely includes recording by a camera.

Data Protection 

The judge found that a camera that recorded audio and visual information that was wholly outside the Defendant's property was not lawful data processing and was, therefore, in breach.

The judge also found that the collection of audio data by both the camera above, another camera, and a Ring doorbell offended the data minimisation principle as it was more intrusive than was necessary to serve any legitimate purpose.

Therefore, the judge found the cameras were in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Summary

If your neighbour has set up cameras that look onto your property or driveway, the current state of the law is that this is not an actionable nuisance. Nor is it likely to be in and of itself harassment without other conduct by the person responsible. It may, however, be a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.

To have your questions answered about CCTV or to bring a claim against a party, you can contact Andrew Cullyer today on 023 8071 7482 or email AndrewCullyer@warnergoodman.co.uk.

For general Litigation or Dispute Resolution enquiries, contact Eleanor Brander on 023 8071 7429 or email EleanorBrander@warnergoodman.co.uk.