From African Pilot Newsletter Vol.4 No.33:
Right to privacy – from Deneys Reitz attorneys
Competitor filming of applicant’s activities to make complaint to the South African Civil Aviation Authority.
In the matter: Huey Extreme Club v McDonald VA Sport Helicopters 2005 (1) SA 485 (C).
Facts: The applicant and the responder operated helicopter services around the Cape Peninsula from sites relatively close to one another. The respondent had filmed the applicant’s operations on an ongoing basis and had made various inspection requests to the Civil Aviation Authority, alleging that the applicant had not complied with civil aviation regulations. The applicant applied for an order restraining the respondent from filming its activities.
Held: Not all invasions of privacy are lawful. In determining unlawfulness a court must have regard to contemporary public policy and the general sense of justice of the community. Although the applicant operates in a public sphere it is still entitles to a degree of privacy within the public arena. The continued filming of the applicant’s operations under the badge of public safety after all the various acceptable means to lodge complaints of the applicant’s alleged unlawful activities have been used in different forums, does not pass the public policy test. The respondent has gone beyond what is reasonable in order to ensure safety of the public regarding the applicant’s activities. The court granted the interdict.
Comment from Deneys Reitz: Most human rights-related decisions engage in a balancing exercise.