StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

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

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 paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER92.4% of users find it useful
Property law: Radical Rejection of Common Law by The High Court of Australia
Read Text Preview

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

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

Comprehensive Australian Program of Law Reform

In these provisions, a person who is injured or has suffered a loss or otherwise incurred damage may institute an action aimed at compensation on the basis of the tort of common law of negligence that is based on fault; breach of contract; and breach of the provisions stipulated in the Australian Consumer Law that was effected in 2011 that replaced provisions of the Federal Trade Practices Act 1974 relating to product liability and safety of produce.... Establishing liability The liability laws take into consideration the common law and statutes of federal and states governments....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

Intellectual Property and Patents

The intellectual property is result of common platform for multiple physical sensors and a repository of both software procedures with hardware acceleration.... In australia the patents are of two types.... 1 According to [2] the intellectual property of Oximeter lies in its design of low cost, miniature, light weight, ultra low power, intelligent sensors capable of customization.... The control of alleviation of costs also will come under intellectual property by following the transition of a new generation of sensors....
24 Pages (6000 words) Essay

Contract Law Practice

common law principles such as promissory estoppel offer scope for development in favor of third parties (Walton Stores vs.... hellip; In Queensland, some statutory modifications have been carried out to the Privity Principle at Section 55 of the property law Act 1974-78.... Western Australia has also carried out some modification to Section 11 of its property law Act 1969-73.... But the Doctrine of Privity remains strong in Australian law and is a contentious issue, impeding recoveries from third parties....
11 Pages (2750 words) Assignment

The case of Mabo

In this case, the high court of australia decided to reject the terra nullius.... According to the Mabo versus Queensland number 1 of 1988, the high court stated that this was not in line with the legislations provided by 1975 racial discrimination act.... This essay describes the case of Mabo became a landmark in the Australian high court, as they were able to come up with a decision bearing in mind the first time recognition of Australian native title....
9 Pages (2250 words) Essay

The Tension between Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in Australia

hellip; The Federation of australia will have to undergo changes in its form and organization, in order to derive the best possible combination that will promote the individual aspirations of a particular State and its distinctive people, while also providing a consolidated framework within which the nation of australia can exist as a sovereign entity.... The authors of the Commonwealth of australia Constitution were Chief Justice Griffith and Justices Barton and OConnor, who had intended that the Constitution of australia should exist on its own merit and not merely as a British statute....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

Mabo and Aboriginal Land Rights Issues in Australia

More importantly, the high court in its ruling in Mabo had clearly stated that all Indigenous people in Australia had the native title with regard to the land.... the high court accepted this historical fact and held that the native title was still in existence, in places where it had not been declared null and void by the law.... nbsp;… As the paper highlights, the Court had held that native title continued to exist even after the British colonization of australia....
17 Pages (4250 words) Essay

The Changes That Court Decision Brought to the Australian Land Laws

In deciding this case, the high court of australia said that the Meriam people have rights over the lands they occupied.... The decision of the high court, in this case, has many legal implications that can change the way Australians deal with land issues.... The landmark decision of the court in the case of Eddie Mabo and Ors v The State of Queensland is one of the most celebrated cases is the history of australia.... According to the judgement of the court, common law accepts the concept of native title and this native title is traditionally connected to the occupation of the land....
7 Pages (1750 words) Case Study

Comprehensive Australian Program of Law Reform

The IPP report recommended reformation of the principles relating to negligence of common law and the damages' assessment by use of legislation.... he liability laws take into consideration the common law and statutes of federal and states governments.... In these provisions, a person who is injured or has suffered a loss or otherwise incurred damage may institute an action aimed at compensation on the basis of the tort of the common law of negligence that is based on fault; breach of contract; and breach of the provisions stipulated in the Australian Consumer Law that was effected in 2011 that replaced provisions of the Federal Trade Practices Act 1974 relating to product liability and safety of produce....
10 Pages (2500 words) Coursework
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.
Contact Us