In an era where privacy concerns are at the forefront of legal
and societal discourse, the question arises: is the surveillance of
individuals permissible? The recent case of De Jager v Netcare
Limited provides a compelling examination of this issue,
balancing the right to privacy against the public interest in
discovering the truth. This article delves into the facts of the
case, the legal framework governing privacy and surveillance, and
the court's conclusions, offering key takeaways for legal
practitioners and privacy advocates alike.
Facts of the Case
The case centres around the admissibility of evidence obtained
through surveillance. Mr De Jager, the plaintiff, objected to the
admission of a report by Mr Pienaar, which included photos and
videos taken without De Jager's consent. The surveillance was
conducted to ascertain the true state of De Jager's health,
which was a pivotal issue in the litigation. The plaintiff argued
that this evidence violated his
