{"id":85,"date":"2026-05-20T11:59:23","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T01:59:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mallen.com.au\/blog\/?p=85"},"modified":"2026-05-20T11:59:24","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T01:59:24","slug":"privacy-vs-protection-in-nsw-courts-tightening-rules-on-strata-cctv-and-doorbell-cameras-in-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mallen.com.au\/blog\/privacy-vs-protection-in-nsw-courts-tightening-rules-on-strata-cctv-and-doorbell-cameras-in-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Privacy vs Protection in NSW: Courts Tightening Rules on Strata CCTV and Doorbell Cameras in 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Legal Landscape Is Shifting for Strata CCTV in NSW<\/h2>\n\n

Smart doorbells, video intercoms, and digital peepholes are now commonplace fittings in NSW apartment buildings. Lot owners increasingly treat them as standard security tools \u2014 and in many respects they are. But in 2026, NSW courts and tribunals are applying stricter scrutiny to how these devices are installed, where they point, and who controls the footage they collect. For strata committees, owners corporations, and building managers, that shift has direct operational consequences.<\/p>\n\n

A recent article by strata law firm JS Mueller & Co highlights the growing tension between a lot owner’s right to secure their front door and a neighbour’s right to privacy under NSW law \u2014 and underscores why a reactive approach to surveillance governance is no longer good enough.<\/p>\n\n

What the Surveillance Devices Act Actually Requires<\/h2>\n\n

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007<\/em> (NSW) makes it a general offence to install or use an optical surveillance device to record a private activity without the consent of the person being recorded. The practical challenge in a strata context is that even a modestly positioned doorbell camera can easily capture a neighbour stepping out of their own front door, or pick up a private conversation in a common corridor.<\/p>\n\n

Courts are becoming less willing to accept “incidental recording” as a defence. The emerging judicial trend, as Mueller & Co notes, is to weigh the collective privacy interests of the scheme above any individual lot owner’s desire for outward-facing surveillance. That is a meaningful change in emphasis for anyone managing a multi-lot scheme.<\/p>\n\n

A separate and equally important issue sits under the Strata Schemes Management Act<\/em>: the external face of a front door and the hallway beyond it are typically common property. Installing any device on common property without an authorised by-law is not merely a privacy issue \u2014 it is a statutory breach. The owners corporation can require immediate removal at the lot owner’s expense, with no obligation to compensate for the hardware.<\/p>\n\n

Why the Absence of a By-law Creates Real Risk<\/h2>\n\n

Without a scheme-specific by-law governing surveillance devices, three problems compound quickly:<\/p>\n\n