Faesenkloet v Jenkin

Question 1

Facts.

Answer 1

Fasekloet had applied for an interim injunction against Jenkin to get a camera above the garage removed. The camera was intruding into Fasenkloet’s seclusion.

Question 2

The Issue

Answer 2

Was the installation of the camera an unauthorised, intentional intrusion into seclusion?

Question 3

Public Place?

Answer 3

There will be less privacy in the garden, including outbuildings. This includes cars and farmland. Anything visible to the public.

Question 4

Expectation of Privacy

Answer 4

Driveway being filmed is not an area where there is a high expectation of privacy. Especially because the driveway in question is open to all visitors on the plaintiff’s property.

Question 5

Offensive?

Answer 5

The greater the expectation, the more likely offensive.
“If it was malicious, or deliberately provocative, then it has the potential to be offensive”.