Insight into Phillips and Another v Bradbury (Appeal) (A200/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 430 (17 September 2025)
In September 2025, the Western Cape High Court delivered a judgment that brings much-needed clarity to the constitutional limits of private surveillance and domestic security systems in South Africa.
Although the dispute arose between neighbours, the judgment has far-reaching implications for residential estates, employers, technology providers, bodies corporate and organisations deploying CCTV or other monitoring technologies.
At its core, the Court affirmed a principle that is becoming increasingly important in a surveillance-heavy world: Systematic, technology-enabled monitoring of another person’s private space can constitute a serious infringement of the constitutional rights to privacy and dignity — even when framed as “security”.
The dispute in brief
The case concerned CCTV cameras installed on a residential property that maintained a continuous line of sight into a neighbouring home. The cameras captured areas that are ordinarily regarded as private, including a swimming pool, entertainment areas, a courtyard and a bedroom.
Despite repeated requests to reposition the cameras so as to eliminate the intrusive line of sight, the homeowners refused, citing heightened crime risk, load shedding and the vulnerability of properties in the area. A court at first instance ordered the cameras to be repositioned to remove the invasion of privacy. That order was taken on appeal to a Full Bench of the High Court.
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Privacy is not defeated by security rhetoric
The High Court confirmed that the right to privacy protected by section 14 of the Constitution extends beyond protection against physical intrusion. Drawing on established Constitutional Court jurisprudence, the Court held that privacy includes protection against unwarranted observation and surveillance, particularly where monitoring is:
- continuous or persistent
- technologically enabled
- directed at spaces forming part of a person’s intimate domestic life
Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that security concerns automatically justify intrusive monitoring. Even where crime prevention is a legitimate objective, the Constitution requires proportionality. Where less restrictive measures are reasonably available—such as alarm systems, electric fencing, motion sensors or alternative camera placement—persistent visual monitoring of a neighbour’s private space cannot be justified.
Security, the Court made clear, is not a constitutional trump card.
Surveillance as nuisance and dignitary harm
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment lies in its integration of common-law nuisance principles with constitutional privacy doctrine.
Historically, nuisance law focused on physical interference with the use and enjoyment of property. The Court recognised that modern surveillance technologies alter the nature of interference itself. Continuous monitoring can cause psychological and dignitary harm, fundamentally changing how individuals experience their homes.
The judgment affirms that living under constant observation is itself a form of injury. Surveillance is not rendered harmless simply because it is passive, automated or remote. Where it is persistent, unavoidable and focused on private spaces, it crosses the threshold into unlawful interference.
This represents an important evolution in South African law, aligning nuisance doctrine with contemporary realities of digital monitoring.
Expectation of privacy remains central
The Court reaffirmed the established “dual expectation” test for privacy: a person must subjectively expect privacy, and that expectation must be one society recognises as objectively reasonable.
Private areas such as swimming pools, courtyards, entertainment spaces and bedrooms clearly satisfy this standard. The fact that an area may be visible from certain vantage points does not strip it of constitutional protection. Privacy does not require total seclusion; it requires freedom from systematic and deliberate surveillance.
This distinction is increasingly important in an era of inexpensive, high-resolution and networked cameras.
What this means in practice and how ITLawCo can help
As surveillance technologies become cheaper, more powerful and more deeply embedded in everyday environments, organisations and individuals face increasing privacy, constitutional and governance risk, often without fully appreciating it.
ITLawCo assists boards, estates, employers, technology providers and regulated institutions to ensure that surveillance practices remain lawful, proportionate and defensible.
| Area of support | What ITLawCo does | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy-by-design surveillance reviews | Assess CCTV and monitoring systems against constitutional privacy standards, POPIA, nuisance law and recent case law, including line-of-sight and proportionality analysis. | Reduces legal exposure before disputes, complaints or litigation arise. |
| Surveillance policy and governance frameworks | Draft CCTV policies, monitoring protocols, estate rules and accountability structures aligned with constitutional and data-protection obligations. | Moves surveillance decisions from ad hoc security choices into formal governance. |
| Risk identification and dispute prevention | Identify privacy and dignity risks and advise on mitigation strategies to prevent escalation into legal conflict. | Protects organisations from reputational and financial harm. |
| Advisory for estates, employers and platforms | Advise on lawful monitoring where private, semi-private and public spaces intersect. | Ensures compliance across complex physical and digital environments. |
| POPIA and data-governance alignment | Align surveillance data handling with POPIA requirements, including lawful processing, retention and access controls. | Avoids regulatory exposure and enforcement risk. |
| Executive briefings and training | Deliver targeted board and executive training on privacy, dignity and surveillance governance. | Enables informed, defensible decision-making at leadership level. |
A constitutional boundary worth noting
In a climate of rising insecurity, it is tempting to normalise surveillance as the price of safety. This judgment draws a clear constitutional boundary.
Surveillance—even when privately deployed—must be lawful, proportionate and respectful of human dignity. When it crosses into continuous observation of another person’s intimate life, it ceases to be security and becomes a rights violation.
Just because you can watch, does not mean you may.
FAQs
Is it legal to install CCTV cameras that capture a neighbour’s property?
It depends. Where cameras systematically monitor a neighbour’s private spaces, such as courtyards, pools or bedrooms, this may constitute an unlawful infringement of constitutional privacy rights, even if installed for security purposes.
Do security or crime risks justify intrusive surveillance?
Not always. While security is a legitimate concern, courts require proportionality. Less intrusive alternatives must be considered and implemented where reasonably available.
Do privacy rights apply between private individuals?
Yes. Constitutional privacy rights apply horizontally and are reinforced by common-law nuisance principles
How does POPIA apply to CCTV footage?
CCTV footage generally constitutes personal information. Its collection, storage, access and retention must comply with POPIA’s requirements.
Can estates or bodies corporate regulate CCTV use?
Yes. Estates and bodies corporate should adopt clear, constitutionally compliant surveillance policies to manage risk and prevent disputes.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific circumstances require tailored legal assessment.
