Free

Property law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Australia - Essay Example

Comments (0) Cite this document
Summary
Topic:  Property law - “The High Court of Australia’s decision in Mabo v State of Queensland (No.2) (1992) was a radical rejection of the Common Law’s previous attitude to the rights of indigenous people.” Discuss. This case involves an important piece of legislation involving the rights and land claims of indigenous peoples in Australia, historically and systematically marginalized by a legal system drawn from Australia’s colonial past under the British…
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER93.5% of users find it useful
Property law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Australia
Read TextPreview

Extract of sample "Property law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Australia"

Topic:  Property law - “The High Court of Australia’s decision in Mabo v of Queensland (No.2) (1992) was a radical rejection of the Common Law’s previous attitude to the rights of indigenous people.” Discuss. This case involves an important piece of legislation involving the rights and land claims of indigenous peoples in Australia, historically and systematically marginalized by a legal system drawn from Australia’s colonial past under the British. By way of brief background to the case, the case had arisen as a result of an action brought against the government of Queensland, Australia by five Meriam Islanders (from the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait) to assail the Queensland Amendment Act of 1982. The action in effect asked the court to resolve a conflict of rights over the islands of Mer, Dauar and Waier in the Torres state -- considering that the land had been annexed by the defendant government in 1879, but prior to the annexation by the British, the Meriam people had been living in peace and cultivating the land. The plaintiffs, arguing on long possession, sought a declaration from the Court that they were entitled to possessory title over the land. The defendant government, on the other hand, argued that when England had made Australia part of the Crown’s dominions, the law of England automatically applied and therefore the Crown obtained “absolute beneficial ownership” of all land in the territory. In a landmark decision and a watershed moment for the land rights struggle of aboriginal peoples in Australia, the court – voting five to one -- found in favor of the plaintiffs, and held in very strong words: It is imperative in today’s world that the common law should neither be or be seen to be frozen in an age of racial discrimination… The fiction by which the rights and interests of indigenous inhabitants in land were treated as nonexistent was justified by a policy which has no place in the contemporary law of this country. The Mabo decision, as it had become to be known, signaled a radical shift from the previous paradigm and attitudes held not only by the legal system but by Australian society in general with respect to native titles. Specifically, the Mabo decision heralded a departure from the Terra Nullius (empty lands) doctrine, and in effect reversed the Gove Land Rights Case (Millirpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd. 17 FLR 141) which involved a 12-year Bauxite mining lease over the Gove Peninsula in Arnhem Land. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 1971 held that native title cannot be recognized in a settled colony, and even if these rights had existed they were extinguished. This is particularly significant because the recognition “native title” accords more flexibility to the holder, as opposed to English customary rights. The reason is that a native title can be the subject of transfer, via surrender or exchange. Hence, there is greater room for communities asserting the title to evolve and adapt to the changing times and changing conditions. In a sense, the decision has caused a blurring of the lines between private ownership and native title, thus rendering it possible for these two property regimes to co-exist. Further, while the Mabo decision did not go so far as completely dismantle the status of Australia as “settled colony”, it interrogated the idea that the fact of settlement ipso facto gave rise to absolute beneficial ownership of all lands to England. The decision recognized that contrary to the terra nullius doctrine, which was premised on the colonial idea that prior to annexation the lands were empty/uncivilized/unregulated by any form of law or structure, there was such a thing as native title, which is determined by the nexus to the land of indigenous occupants and their traditional customs. Justices Dean and Gauldron referred to this as: An established entitlement of an identified community, group, or (rarely) an individual to the occupation or use of particular land and that the entitlement be of sufficient significance to establish locally recognized special relationship between the particular community, group, or individual and that land. It is important to note the nuance of the decision, in that it did not claim that the settlement doctrine is completely dissolved. What it did claim is that common law (which was introduced in Australia by virtue of the settlement) could validly accommodate the concept of native title, for as long as the requisites of establishing native title have been proven. The decision also holds that while native title is not automatically abrogated by the act of annexation, native title can be validly unilaterally extinguished by the Crown for as long as the extinguishment was made clearly and without ambiguity by the legislature or the executive, and it is the burden of the party asserting the extinguishment that such had been clearly and unambiguously made. In a sense, therefore, the Mabo doctrine straddles two opposing paradigms: it provides an important layer of protection to aboriginal communities and indigenous peoples while at the same time still affirming the power and legitimacy of the colonial government. It also led to policy and practical questions being remaining unanswered – such as who owns access to the resources, e.g., minerals (a question that the Court would face a decade later.) It is also simplistic to say that before the Mabo decision, communal property rights were completely unrecognized under British common law and that British law lived in monolithic blindness of pre-existing systems. If Australia had been designated as a “conquered colony”, then the laws of the conquered indigenous tribes would apply. It is because Australia has long been considered a “settled colony” that the persistent debates arise. However, as far as British common law is concerned, English customary rights had already been recognized and accepted. In fact, the “rights of common” and “customary rights” with respect to natural resources are long in place. As early as three hundred years ago, customary rights had already been appreciated by the courts, and this was affirmed in the case of Oxfordshire County Council v. Oxford City Council wherein reference was made to a long line of cases demonstrating that customary rights that have been in place “since time immemorial”, particularly over village greens and similar areas. To quote from Lord Hoffman at paragraph 5 of the stated case, “village greens are in theory survivals from the mediaeval past, established by immemorial local customs dating back to before the accession of Richard I in 1189”. Of course, current law (CRA 1965 and CA 2006) require registration of rights over land so that its continued use and enjoyment may be guaranteed. Be that as it may, the Mabo decision is a radical sea-change in Australian jurisprudence. It paved the way for policy changes, most notably the enactment of the “Native Title Act of 1993” which established the National Native Title Tribunal, with the end in view of creating an arbitration mechanism for the resolution of native title claims. But more importantly, the Mabo decision represents a change in attitudes in how indigenous peoples are viewed and how they should be treated. From previous attitudes of conferring “new rights” upon them by the magnanimity and grace of the Crown, we now move towards respect and acknowledgement of “existing rights” – a major shift with important implications for Australian society and even the world. References Allen, CK. (1964) Law in the Making, 7th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2.) (1992) 175 CLR 1. Millirpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd. (1971) 17 FLR 141 Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Property law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1430529-property-law-ypthe-high-court-of-australiayies
(Property Law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Essay)
https://studentshare.org/law/1430529-property-law-ypthe-high-court-of-australiayies.
“Property Law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1430529-property-law-ypthe-high-court-of-australiayies.
  • Cited: 0 times
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment or rate a document

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Property law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Australia

Common Law

..., however protection by the Act and the reversal of the decision by the House of Lords would lead to the exclusion clause of Mix-o-Crete being effective. The next step would be to consider UCTA (unfair contract terms Act). (Elliott et al, 2007) The courts would look into the fact of consumer and clearly Bob was a consumer and Mix-o-Crete was dealing in the course of business. Thus the test of reasonableness that is the inclusion of such an exclusion clause being reasonable would be considered. Clearly the exclusion of any liability would be considered to be unreasonable even if it satisfies the criteria of the common law principle, thus the exclusion clause would not be effective. Finally...
15 Pages(3750 words)Essay

American/Texas Government

...to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The sixth amendment deals in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses Williams 7 Against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of...
20 Pages(5000 words)Research Paper

Common law

...requires an analysis of Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984. Each of these will be discussed in turned and the duty that is applied by the courts would be discussed. Both the Acts have not defined what the meaning of an occupier is, the decisive criteria for determining the occupier is the element which is called the control of the premises. The court in Wheat v Lacon15 made a detailed discussion of who an occupier is. The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 is an Act which tends to focus on lawful visitors who have been described in s.1(2) under which a common duty of care is owed to such lawful visitors. The status of the entrant is quite easily that of a...
15 Pages(3750 words)Essay

Property Law

...?Property Law Property Law A will is a legal document that allows someone to or dictate who will receive his estate and how much of the estate will go to any specified personi. The person that draws a will is by law referred to as the testator, and they may leave the management or ownership of the estate to more than one party. The purpose of drafting a will is to distribute a person’s wealth upon that person’s death. In common law, a will only referred to the document that disposes of real property while a testament was the term that was used in the disposition of personal property....
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay

Property law

...Property law The first case regarding the use of the jointly owned property between by Barney, Floyd, and Howard, pertaining to the issue of settlement by Ernest on a property, has its legal basis be drawn under the legal concept of Adverse possession, which provides for the alternative ownership of property by a disseisor (not the real property owner), without compensation (Martin, 77). Under this provision of the law, an individual who has possessed the property of another for a reasonable period of time can be rewarded with the ownership of such property, subject to the fulfillment of...
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

Property law

...?Business organization Insert of the Business organization Sole- proprietorship The advantages that Betty would get in this business organization include being the sole decision maker who can make decisions promptly , she would enjoy all the profits alone, and requires few legal and business formalities. The disadvantages that she will be likely to encounter include being personal liable to obligations and debts of the business, suffers losses alone, and business suffers or collapses when the owner is absent or incapacitated (Dore?,2003). Partnership If betty decides to enter a partnership business, the advantages she is likely to get include moral support and creative brainstorming from the partners of the business, ability... organization...
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

Common law

...expenditures. According to Starkey and McKinlay, two new companies were offering competition with lower prices at that time. Unfortunately, Pilkington chose not to lower their prices and their situation deteriorated further. The next step was a price war but when prices stabilised, Pilkington could not support the lower prices and competition benefitted. It was determined that the company's reputation for high centralisation was damaging them and the following suggestions were made (416): Decentralising collective bargaining Restructuring of jobs, working practises and rewards Team-based commitment to business objectives a) Optimum flexibility and mobility of employees b) Single pay structure for all employees below...
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

The Effects of a Adopting a Mandatory Employment Arbitration System in The Middle East and The UK

..., and applied the rules and customs of the merchant class. 118 In this way, the Common Law courts were bypassed by the Merchant Law119. The latter viewed the Common Law courts as undesirable foreign entities which would only complicate disputes over the application of multi-national principles of law. 120 The arbitration process at the Fairs was rapid and lacking in formality. 121In fact, the panels were typically set up to hear disputes and resolve them between ‘two tides’, which invariably meant that the dispute would be resolved by way of arbitration within 24 hours. 122 Merchants and administrators often enforced the...
43 Pages(10750 words)Essay

Common Law

...in alleging breach of contract. Alternatively, as a consumer contract concluded by telephone Abigail will also have rights to cancel the contract under the Regulations within 7 days from when the order was made. Task 2 With regard to Abigail’s legal position vis-à-vis Slipstream films, there are clearly issues with regard to the legality of the contract. A void contract is an invalid agreement the result of which nullifies any legal obligations between parties and is held to be void ab initio (Treitel, 2007). At common law, a contract is void ab initio if the contract commits a crime, tort or fraud (Treitel, 2007). If a contract is void ab inito, then the innocent party is entitled to claim damages for...
8 Pages(2000 words)Essay

Family Law: Divorce Property Division Court Considerations

...here is applied to both the real property and to the personal property of the spouses. For the purposes of this law, it does not matter if the property was registered in the names of one spouse or both but so long as it was acquired after the date that the spouses married, the law takes it to be owned equally by both spouses. There are exceptions to this law; in the cases whereby one spouse for example added the names of the other spouse to the deed of a non marital property and then the spouse whose name was added can prove that the other spouse who was the original owner did that with an intention to make a gift or...
9 Pages(2250 words)Assignment
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Let us find you another Essay on topic Property law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Australia for FREE!

Contact Us