The difference between personal and real property stems from the different remedies available at common law.7 If a person was entitled to a real remedy (could recover the object as of right) it was classified as real property. 5 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Commonwealth 1971 ALR 65. 6 King v David Allen & Sons, Billposting Ltd 1916 2 AC 54. Unit 1 The Australian legal system: Revision Cases. For the exam you should have studied these cases: Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. Prior to this case it was considered that Australia was terra nullius, that is, land belonging to no one.Indeed, in the Gove Land Rights case, Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141, Justice Blackman identified three basic conditions that must.
This article includes a, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient. Please help to this article by more precise citations. ( February 2018) Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty LtdCourt(NT)Decided27 April 1971Citation(s)(1971) 17 141Court membershipJudge(s) sittingMilirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (the 'Gove land rights case') was the first litigation on.
The decision of Justice ruled against the claimants on a number of issues of law and fact, rejecting the doctrine of recognizing that in the law of the time of British colonisation of Australia there was a distinction between settled colonies, where the land, being 'desert and uncultivated', was claimed by right of occupancy, and conquered or ceded colonies. The term 'desert and uncultivated' included territory in which resided 'uncivilized inhabitants in a primitive state of society'. The decision noted that the Crown had the power to extinguish native title, if it existed. The issue of, later raised in (1992), was not contemplated in this decision.Although Milirrpum was not appealed beyond the, it was overruled by the two decades later in after his death.Blackburn, in a confidential memorandum to the government and opposition, opined that a system of Aboriginal land rights was 'morally right and socially expedient'. The judgement concludes: 'I cannot help being specially conscious that for the plaintiffs it is a matter in which their personal feelings are involved.' Main article:In December 1968, the people living in, who were the traditional owners of the in, obtained writs in the against the Corporation, which had secured a twelve-year mining lease from the Federal Government.
Their goal was to establish in law their rightful claim to their homelands.The Yolngu people claimed they enjoyed legal and over their land and sought declarations to occupy the land free from interference pursuant to their rights.The Yolngu people had petitioned the in August with a after the government sold part of the reserve on 13 March of that year to a bauxite mining company. The government had not consulted the traditional owners at the time.Yolngu applicants asserted before the Court that since time immemorial, they held a “communal native title” that had not been validly extinguished, or acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 (Cth), and should be recognized as an enforceable proprietary right. The lengthy legal battle culminated in 1971. Ruling Justice Blackburn found that the Yolngu people could not prevent mining on their lands.
He categorically held that native title was not part of the law of Australia and went on to add that even had it existed, any native title rights were extinguished.Blackburn rejected the claim on the bases that:. A doctrine of common law had no place in a settled colony except under express statutory provisions (i.e.
![Milirrpum Milirrpum](https://d20ohkaloyme4g.cloudfront.net/img/document_thumbnails/e1a22de946fea9b3638bdcf70d9e6607/thumb_1200_1697.png)
![Milirrpum V Nabalco Property Milirrpum V Nabalco Property](/uploads/1/2/4/2/124227544/921421513.jpg)
This article includes a, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient. Please help to this article by more precise citations. ( June 2011) Mabo v Queensland (No 2)CourtFull case nameMabo and Others v Queensland (No. Main article:The Mabo decision presented many legal and political questions, including:. the validity of titles issued after the commencement of the;.
the permissibility of future development of land affected by native title;. the procedures for the large-scale determination of issues of native title.In response to the judgment, the, controlled by the led by Prime Minister, enacted the, which established the (NTTA) to make native title determinations in the first instance, appealable to the, and thereafter the High Court. Following (1996), Parliament amended the Native Title Act with the.Ten years following the Mabo decision Mrs Mabo claimed that issues remained within the community about land on Mer. Popular culture A straight-to-TV film titled was produced in 2012 by in association with the. It provided a dramatised account of the case, focusing on the effect it had on Mabo and his family.The case was also referenced as background to the plot in the 1997 comedy.In 2009 as part of the celebrations, the Mabo High Court of Australia decision was announced as one of the of Queensland for its role as a 'Defining Moment'. See also. Mabo v Queensland (No 2), (1992) 175 1 (3 June 2019),.
(1971) 17 141 (27 April 1971) (NT). (Cth). ^ Stephens, Tony (31 May 2002). Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 19 May 2018., (1996) 187 1 (23 December 1996),.
(Cth). (10 June 2009). Archived from on 24 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2017. Richard Bartlett, 'The Proprietary Nature of Native Title' (1998) 6 Australian Property Law Journal 1.
Williams, George; Brennan, Sean; Lynch, Andrew (2014). Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (6 ed.). Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press. Pp. 136–146.External links.
The Hon. Sir (September 1995). 1995 Seventh International Appellate Judges Conference.