Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6656x9216 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

RACE BROADCASTS.
TURF CLUB'S APPEAL.
Descriptions Outside Course.
SYDNEY, April 15.-The hearing of an
appeal from a judgment by Mr. Justice
Nicholas, in which he dismissed with
costs a suit by the Victoria Park Racing
and Recreation Grounds Co., Ltd., seek
ing to prohibit the broadcasting of races
at Victoria Park, was begun by the High
Court yesterday. The question, in effect,
is whether the broadcasting of races in
fringes legal rights.
The defendants in the case which the
company, as plaintiff, brought before Mr.
Justice Nicholas, were George Taylor,
Cyril Angles and the Commonwealth
Broadcasting Corporation. Ltd. (station
2UW), now respondents on the appeal.
The company had unsuccessfully asked
His Honour for Perpetual injunctions
against each of the defendants restrain
ing Taylor from allowing his land, ad
jacent to Victoria Park racecourse, to be
used for broadcasting any race meeting
held on the course; Angles, a broadcast
announcer, from taking any part in
broadcasting race meetings held there;
and the Commonwealth Broadcasting
Corporation from making any such broad
cast.
It was stated in the proceedings before
Mr. Justice Nicholas that Taylor was the
owner of a cottage and land opposite the
racecourse and on this land a platform
had been erected giving a view of the
racing tracks, the judge's box and the
boards on which the names of starters
and their barrier positions were placed.
With Taylor's permission, Angles observed
race meetings from this platform and
described races for 2UW. It was from
His Honour's judgment, in which he held
that the defendants ld infringed no
legal right of the coipny, that the
company now appealed.
The company appealed to the High
Court on the following among other
grounds: That His Honour's decision was
against the evidence and the weight of
evidence; that His Honour was in error
in law, in so far as he held that there
was an obligation on the company to con
tract with neighbouring landowners not.
to allow their land to be used in the
manner in which Taylor's land was used
by Angles.
The company contended that His
Honour should have held that the acts
of the defendants complained of and
proved by the company constituted an
actionable wrong at common law. It
was further contended by the company
that, on the evidence, His Honour should
have held that the information referred
to, if not protected as statutory copyright,
was property in which the company had
rights at common law and that the acts
of the defendants constituted an action
able infringement of the company's com
mon law rights in that respect.
Mr. A. C. Gain (leading counsel for
the appellant company) said that the
company held that it was entitled to re
lief under two main headings-first, for
interference with its rights to the use
and enjoyment of its land and, secondly,
on the question of statutory and common
law copyright. The company claimed that
since the public wanted to knpw what
was taking place on its land and wanted
to see the spectacle there, the company
had the power to say: "If you want that,
you pay us to come in and see what is
taking place." The company claimed
that that was its right and that its land
was valuable because it could do that.
The Chief Justice (Sir John Latham):
Your contention is that the defendant
puts himself on stilts?
Mr. Gain said that, in effect, not merely
the defendant, but the rest of the world,
was put on stilts by the act complained
of.
If, Mr. Gain proceeded, the principles
laid down by the judge were correct,
then there would have to be some radical
alteration of the law once television was
established.
Argument revolved at some length
round the law of nuisance, on which the
company's appeal is largely based, and
the definition of "nuisances." Mr. Gain
contended that interference with the use
and enjoyment of land was a common law
nuisance prima facie.
Proceedings were adjourned until to
morrow.
$