Fairhurst v Woodard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | HER HONOUR JUDGE MELISSA CLARKE,DR MARY FAIRHURST,– and –,MR JON WOODARD |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2021 |
| Court | County Court |
---------------------
---------------------
---------------------
---------------------
Case No: G00MK161
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT OXFORD
St Aldate’s, Oxford OX1 1TL
Date 12 October 2021
B e f o r e:
HER HONOUR JUDGE MELISSA CLARKE
B e t w e e n:
DR MARY FAIRHURST
Claimant
-and –
MR JON WOODARD
Defendant
Mr Charles Phipps (instructed by Slade Legal ) for the Claimant
Mr Jonathon Rushton (instructed on a direct access basis) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 6 and 7 May 2021
JUDGMENT
County Court Approved Judgment
Fairhurst v Woodard
Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke:
A. Introduction
1. This is judgment following the 2 day trial of the Claimant Dr Fairhurst’s
claim in harassment, nuisance and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018
arising from the Defendant Mr Woodard’s use of several security cameras
and lights at and around his property in Thame.
2. The parties are neighbours. The Claimant is a scientist who owns 83
Cromwell Avenue, Thame, Oxfordshire (“No 83”). She has lived there
since 1997. The Defendant is an audio-visual technician. He owns 87
Cromwell Avenue (“No 87”) and has lived there since at least 2003,
although he moved out temporarily when refurbishing the property in
2017/2018.
3. No.83 is the end property of a terrace of houses. To the east of No 83,
running along its side boundary, is an access road (“the driveway”) leading
into a large private parking area with a number of spaces owned and/or
used by local residents (“the car park”). To the east of that driveway is 85
Cromwell Avenue, which is the first property of a second terrace of houses.
At all relevant times, No 85 was occupied by a Ms Paige Vantuykom.
Attached to the west of No 85 is No 87, a mid-terrace property. The rear
gardens of, inter alia, No 83, No 85 and No 87 back onto the car park.
4. In the car park, The Claimant owns two parking spaces located immediately
behind the rear garden boundary fence of No 83. The Defendant owns one
parking space immediately behind the rear garden boundary fence of No 87
and rented the adjacent space from the owners of 89 Cromwell Avenue
since November 2019.
5. The Defendant keeps a shed in his rear garden, up against that fence. On
that shed he has mounted (i) a floodlight and sensor (“the Floodlight”); and
(ii) a video and audio surveillance camera with an integrated motion
sensitive spotlight known as a ‘Ring’ Spotlight Camera (Battery) (the
“Shed Camera”) pointing in the direction of the car park.
Page 2
County Court Approved Judgment
Fairhurst v Woodard
6. Next to the front door of No 87, the Defendant has also installed a
combined doorbell and video and audio surveillance system known as a
‘Ring’ Video Doorbell 2 (the “Ring Doorbell”) and pointing in the
direction of Cromwell Avenue.
7. On the gable end wall of No 85 (i.e. Ms Vantuykom’s property), the
Defendant installed a second ‘Ring’ Spotlight Camera (Battery) (the
“Driveway Camera”), pointing down the driveway towards the car park.
8. Finally, the Defendant placed a camera which he says was a ‘Nest’ camera
inside the front windowsill of No 87 (“Windowsill Camera”), pointing out
of the window towards Cromwell Avenue..
9. I will come back to the chronology of those installations. However, it is
common ground that the Defendant removed the Driveway Camera and the
Windowsill Camera sometime in November 2019 before the
commencement of these proceedings. The Floodlight, Shed Camera and the
Ring Doorbell remain in situ. Where convenient, I will refer to the Shed
Camera, the Driveway Camera, the Ring Doorbell and the Windowsill
Camera as “the Cameras”.
10. In relation to the Driveway Camera and the Windowsill Camera there is an
issue about whether they were ever in use as cameras, or, as is the
Defendant’s case, never commissioned and so merely visible ‘dummy’
deterrents (and in the case of the Driveway Camera, used only as a motion
sensitive spotlight).
11. In relation to each of the Cameras, there are issues between the parties about:
i) its field and depth of view, i.e. the extent it can ‘see’ beyond the
boundaries of the Defendant’s property, in particular whether it can
‘see’ the Claimant or her visitors entering and leaving her property, her
car, or the car park;
ii) the sensitivity of its microphone;
Page 3
To continue reading
Request your trial