PETITION FAILS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 86, 21 January 1938, Page 5

PETITION FAILS

RACE BROADCASTS.

AUSTRALIAN CASE DECIDED.

HEARD BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL

(United Press Association—Copyright.) (Received This Day, 10.0 a.m.) LONDON, January 19.

The Privy Council refused the Victoria Park Racing Club, Sydney, leave to appeal in the broadcasting case. The Club appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the decision of the Commonwealth High Court in a case involving the right of a person overlooking the racecourse to broadcast a. commentary on the racing.

Sir William Jowitt, K.C., on behalf of the club, said that the owner of the land adjoining the course erected a tower from which a person with fieldglasses could view the racing and broadcast a minute description of it. The result undoubtedly was that persons who used to pay admission abstained and were content to listen to the broadcast. The Club contended that that was non-natural use of the land. The chairman (Lord Russell) said that the landowner was using his land in a “placeable” way. Sir William Jowitt: “That is so, but in a non-natural way and caused damage.” Sir William said there was no such thing as the absolute right of the landowner to privacy, but it was a complete fallacy because of that to say there was a right on the other side of unlimited overlooking. Lord Russell: The use of the land in the way complained did not interfere with the enjoyment of the people who went to the racecourse.

Mr L. F. Abrahams, the Australian K.C. for respondents, said that no one attending the race meeting might be aware of the broadcasting. It could not be said what was happening interfered with the use and enjoyment of the racecourse. Its only effect related to people not on the land. Sir William Jowitt said there was danger of it being thought that because the English law did not allow perfect privacy that anybody by means of modern inventions like broadcasting and television could “steal” —for it was little more—that which other .people provided, without expense of organising the entertainment themselves. Sir William suggested that if that were law grievous harm might be done. It was most desirable that the matter, which did not exclusively concern Australia, should be decided. Lord Russell said lie did not think this was a case in which they could give leave to appeal. The petition was dismissed. Lord Russell, Lord Romer and Sir George Rankin heard the application, which was ’listed as “Victoria Park Racing Company, Limited, against George Taylor, Cyril Angles and the Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation, Limited.”

The decision carries costs

A message from Sydney on March 19, 1936, said: The statement of claim in a pending suit which will test, the validity of race broadcasting in New South Wales was lodged with the Equity Court this afternoon. The nominal plaintiff in the action is Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds, Ltd., which is asking for an injunction perpetually restraining the Commonweatlh Broadcasting Corporation, Ltd. (Station 2UW) from transmitting descriptions of horse races during the progress of meetings at Victoria Park racecourse. Joined as defendants are the broadcaster, Cyril Angle, and also the owner of certain land adjoining the racecourse. On this land is ’an observation toiver used in the broadcasting. The plaintiff claims that the broadcast of races has depreciated the value of its land and have diminished the profits of the racecourse.