NO INJUNCTION

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 17, 21 January 1938, Page 9

NO INJUNCTION

RACING BROADCASTS

CLUB'S SUIT FAILS

APPEAL DECISION

(United I'iess Association— Us Electric Telegraph—Copyright.)

(Received January 21, 12.30 p.m.) LONDON, January 20.

The Privy Council has refused the application of the Victoria Park Racing Club (Sydney) for leave to appeal in the broadcasting case. Costs were allowed the respondents.

The Victoria Park Racing Club appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from tne decision of the Commonwealth High Court, the case involving the right, of a person overlooking a racecourse to broadcast a commentary of the racing.

Sir William Jowitt, X.C (on behalf of the club) said that the owner of the land adjoining the course erected a tower from which a person with field glasses could view the racing and broadcast a minute description of the running. The result undoubtedly was that persons who used to pay for admission abstained and were content to listen to the broadcast. Ths club contended that it was non-natural use oi land.

The chairman (Lord Russell): The land owner was using his land in a "placeable" way. Sir William Jowitt: That's so, but it was non-natural and caused damage. "NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PRIVACY." Lord Russell: You say • that a nonnatural use is injurious? Sir William Jowitt: Yes. There is no such thing as an absolute right of a land owner to privacy, but it is a complete fallacy because of that to say. that there is a right on the other side of unlimited overlooking.

Lord Russell: The use of the land in the way complained of did not interfere with the enjoyment of people who went to the racecourse.

Sir William Jowitt quoted the cast of a man who stored highly inflammable jute on his land. The adjoining owner was forced to pay higher fire insurance premiums and obtained an injunction, although the enjoyment of the land was noi interfered with. Mr. L. F. Abrahams, Australian K.C. (for the respondents): No one attending the race meeting might be aware of the broadcasting. It could not be said that what was happening interfered with the use and enjoyment of a racecourse. The only effect related to people who were not on the land. Sir William Jowitt said that there was a danger of its being' thought that, because the English law did not allow perfect privacy, anybody, by means of modern inventions like broadcasting and television, could "steal"—for it was little more—that which other people provided, without the expense of organising the entertainment themselves. He suggested that if that were the law grievous harm might be done It was most desirable that the matter, which did not exclusively concern Australia, should be decided by; thLord Ußussell said he did not think that this was a case in. which he could, give leave to appeal. The petition would be dismissed. Lord Russell, Lord Romer, and Sit George Rankin heard the application, which was listed Victoria Park ternS Company, Limited, v. George Tayloi, Cyril Angles, and the Commonwealth i Broadcasting Corporation, Limited.

The appeal concerned an original application by the Victoria Park Racing Club asking for an injunction to restrain perpetually the Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation, L^^ ed (Station 2UW), from transmitting descriptions of horse races dunng the progress of meetings at the Victoria Park racecourse. The application was dismissed in Australian courts. At the original hearing Mr, Justice Nicholas said that what the defendants (the Broadcasting Corporation, had dons was to place at the disposal of others something they acquired from the do Kg Stout that, in view of the add* or the authority responsible for tw issue of broadcast licences.