Victoria Park Racing v Taylor Case Study

This assignment provides a detailed analysis of the Victoria Park Racing v Taylor case (1937), which raises questions about the classification of property law. The case focuses on the infringement of copyrights and broadcasting rights, highlighting the struggle between commercial and private interests in emerging technologies. The report discusses the traditional concept of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets, and copyrights, and how it was applied in this case. The assignment also touches on the concept of quasi-property rights and their relationship to the use of property for a lifetime or its sale.

Property law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCE...................................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION
Traditionally the classification of property was done on the basis of objects of the
property rather than relying on the tests of the property. The classification did not lead to
answer the question of establishment of the property relation. The objects do not fall in the
ambit of traditional classification. The above statement is critically evaluated in the light of the
case ‘Victoria Park racing v Taylor (1937).
MAIN BODY
The traditional classification of the intellectual property can be defined as industrial
property (patent, trademarks, industrial design and trade secrets) and copyright. As in the case
of Victoria V Tylor the plaintiff filed a case for infringement of his copyright and broadcasting
rights and demanded injunction to stop defendant from broadcasting the race related
information from the adjacent premise of the plaintiff. The object concept was more detailed
which defines the inventions their rights and infringements of the same. Rather, the traditional
concept was followed to decided this case as under which category does the copy right law
falls.
Under the traditional classification of the property law the objective of the property is
seen that what is the aim and objectives of different intellectual properties. Such as under the
copyrights falls the original work of literacy, dream, music artistic work such as poetry, novels,
movies, songs, computer software and architecture (He, Feng and Huang, 2016). In the case of
Victoria V Taylor the plaintiff files a lawsuit against Taylor over the nuisance and breach of the
copyrights. The construction and use of the platform did not construct any breach of the
gambling and betting law, zoning regulations and even the broadcast regulations. This lead the
park authority to filed a case against Taylor of infringement of the copyrights. The issues raised
in this case was how far a person can retrain another for invading the privacy of the land which
is occupied by him however desirable some limitation upon invasions of privacy might be, no
authority was cited which shows that any general right of privacy exist (AN AUSTRALIAN
PERSPECTIVE ON PRIVACY LAW DEVELOPMENTS, 2018). The judged passed the decision
on the basis that the to broadcast a description of the occurrence from the neighbors land is not
defined under the ambit of property law and do not defined an interest falling within the
category which protects at law or in equity.
1

Moreover, it was stated in the case that the defended used the information from the
plaintiff premise, of his plaintiff was the sole owner and he must have lost profits due to act of
defendant but this is not defined as an action of tort in the common law (Henderson Jr, 2017).
This clearly shows the facts that the judges for deciding this case just applied the objective test
by seeing what is present in the law ans did no go beyond the common law to seek the correct
judgment for the plaintiff.
In this case it was seen that although there is no general rule recognized under the
common law over the invasion of the property neither there is any restriction over the spying
and overlooking in the property of another person.
With the decision of the case Victoria park racing and recreation Grounds of Ltd v
Tylor raised the question the classification of property as in this case the objective of the
property was taken into account. This means that the legal ownership of the property regarding
accounting is seen. In this case the concept of quasi property was rejected. The concept of quasi
property can be defined as a legal principle in which the rights similar to the ownership of a
property arise to party for an act to benefit the society as a whole (Victoria Park Racing &
Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479, 2018). Under the property law the
quasi property rights arise as to use the property for a lifetime or to sell the property. With
deciding this case it was held by the judges that it has upheld the traditional way of equality in
the law and can not give injunctions over the intangible elements of the value.
While deciding the case the judged mainly focused on the classification of the property
which means under which category the infringements of copy rights fall which is a form of
intelligible intellectual property. The concept of the test of the property was clearly overruled in
this case as this do not fall in the ambit of equal judgment to the English legal system.
However, this case is seemingly getting outdated as this was concerned with the nature
of the property and its reason is still applied in the courts today. There are limits on the things
overs which a person can claims the property rights in. This case presents the struggle between
the commercial and private interest in the era of emerging technologies. Property law has a
role in maintaining economic prosperity and social harmony by determining who is entitled to
the rights of certain things (Intellectual Property, 2018). The scope of the property rights is
restricted and is ultimately defined in the terms of its enforceability of specific rights which are
against the wide range of persons. The actions for the infringement of the property can be taken
2

for tortuous actions of nuisance which is defined under the law, apart from that no actions of
infringement can be taken by the property owners against another person through he /she has
suffered damages due to such actions.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that this report that this case did not provide a clear judgment over
the infringement of the property rights of a person rather it created a confusion about the
application of the laws as to what if the object which is question in the law did not fall under
the ambit of common law/ this directly leads to giving wrong judgment as the plaintiff faced
losses due to the actions of his neighbor which not held to be wrong under the law as none of
them were defined in any of the acts or regulations.
3

REFERENCE
Books and journals
He, Q., Feng, J. L. and Huang, W. Y., 2016, August. Law of Negligence: Duty of Care,
Standard of Care, and the Notion of Personal Responsibility. In 2016 International
Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation. Atlantis Press.
Henderson Jr, J. A., 2017. Learned Hand's Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence
Law. Calif. L. Rev. 105. p.165.
Online
Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479. 2018.
[Online]. Available through :<https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/victoria-
park-racing-recreation-grounds-co-ltd-v-taylor-1937-58-clr-479/>.
Intellectual Property. 2018. [Online]. Available through
:<https://businessjargons.com/intellectual-property.html>.
AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE ON PRIVACY LAW DEVELOPMENTS . 2018. [Online].
Available through
:<http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Speeches/Pre-
2015%20Speeches/McColl/mccoll300909.pdf>.
4