“Could EVERY doorbell camera owner face £100,000 fine after landmark ruling” thundered a headline from yesterday’s Daily Mail. The short answer to the question is “No”, but the question was prompted by the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke in Fairhurst v Woodard.
The case concerned allegations that four cameras positioned around the Defendant’s property breached the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”) and the UK GDPR. The judgment, which turns on its own facts, found that there were breaches of the DPA and regulations and judgment was consequently given in favour of the Claimant.
The case has made headlines in the press on the basis that the claim was somehow novel. However, the ICO has offered guidance on the use of CCTV cameras in a domestic context for some time. The guidance notes that if a homeowner has a surveillance system that captures images of people outside the boundary of the private domestic property, e.g., a neighbour’s home or a public footpath, then the provisions of the UK GDPR and DPA will apply.
The guidance sets out a series of questions that should be considered by someone before installing a CCTV system.
Given the publicity surrounding the judgment in Fairhurst v Woodard it would seem likely that other such claims will follow and doorbell cameras can be added to boundary walls, overhanging tree branches and loud music on the list of things over which neighbours can fall out.
This week we examine an unusual arbitration case involving (or did it?) a foreign limitation period; and another decision on the tension between open justice and protection of commercially sensitive information (we understand, by the way, that on 25th February the Court of Appeal will…
This week we look at two decisions, both of which will be of critical importance to practitioners in pursuance of contested litigation. In one, unusually, without prejudice correspondence was admissible in a case involving fundamental dishonesty; whilst in the other, the court reviewed the authorities…
Following a 5-day liability trial in the High Court in Manchester, the Claimant’s negligence and Human Rights Act claims were dismissed by HHJ Bird sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The Claimant was a Type 1 diabetic who suffered from a history of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR