Property Law – “Seminar” 2.1

PROPERTY LAW – “SEMINAR” 2.1
INTRODUCTION TO PROPERTY RIGHTS
We possess rights in a thing/land, as there is a relationship between that thing and the owner.
Allodidal system
Tenures of estates – Where we hold certain rights in property. Where there is a relationship in the
holders of those rights and property.
Introductory concepts
• Real property = Land
• Personal property = goods (chattels)
• Possession
o A person in possession of land or goods, even wrongly, is entitled to take action
against anyone who seeks to interfere with that possession except where that
person can show they have a superior right of possession.
 Thus we own property until someone comes along with a better claim to
obtain that property.
 For land, we have a central registry where all the land in an area has the
details of recorded ownership in relation to land.
o Such a person with possession is to:
 Have control over that thing, with
 Intent to possess that thing.
o Key concept in property law-basis in feudal system of tenure
• Ownership
o Possession is a right that can be granted by an owner to someone else
o Ownership is all rights in relation to lands or goods. Rights of ownership includes
right to possess, to use, manage and enjoy, the right to income, the right to
alienate, (by sale, lease, mortgage or gift) – This is the bundle of rights.
Distinction between property and non-property rights
• Davis v Commonwealth
o Sued by Davis and two other people due to certain provisions in the Bicentennial
Act were beyond the power of the Commonwealth to exercise which prevented
Davis and two others from selling shirts in support for aboriginals due to the use
of a symbol under trademark.

o Established that there are no property rights in common words or phrases.
o It is possible to have property rights in a trademark, but held that cannot hold
similar property rights in common words or phrases.
• Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Company Ltd v Taylor
o Taylor had owned land nearby where he built a platform where he was able to
spectate the races from his land and broadcast the details by radio.
o Argued that there are no property rights in a spectacle. The counter-argument was
that Taylor was creating a nuisance by interfering with the use and enjoyment of
their land, but the courts did not accept it.
o Courts stated that the Ps should have protected their interest by building a higher
fence to prevent others seeing.
o In this case, a property was owned, which was near a racecourse. He built a tower
and could watch the races from that tower.
o There was no right to hold the spectacle of that race.
• Kent v Johnson
o In this case, in Canberra there is a view of Black Mountain. Kent argued that the
appreciation of the view was being spoilt by the construction of a tower in the
way, but the Kent didn’t possess any property right of what other people that
affect Kent’s view did.