In this essay, the significance of the concept of ‘land’ under English law is critically evaluated through reference to the statutory definitions of ‘land’ provided by the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Land Registration Act 2002 and the approach of the courts in determining locus standi to assert rights against a third party and in reconciling competing interests in the same real property. The main statutory definition for ‘land’ is provided by the Law of Property Act 1925, stating ““Land” includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings… and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, and a rent and other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from land…” This definition is mirrored verbatim by section 17(1) of the Land Charges Act 1972, and incorporated into the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 by section 23(2) of that Act. This definition can be criticized on a number of bases: First, it is overly-complex in the wording that it employs; second, it is non-exhaustive because the word “…includes…” makes it clear that the draughtsmen of this provision anticipated that rights other than those described by this definition could also be deemed to be “land” for the purposes of the 1925 Act which means that it is not possible to use this definition to delineate the boundaries of this legal concept; third, it suffers from contextual limitations because it applies only within the context of the Law of Property Act 1925; fourth, it is inherent circular when stating ““Land” includes land…”; in that it uses the word land to define the concept of land; fifth, it fails to... ... middle of paper ... ...ch are not included in the footnotes) Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56. Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75. Commissioner for Railways v Valuer-General [1974] AC 328 per Lord Wilberforce at 351 Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1886) 33 Ch D 562. Grigsby v Melville [1974] 1 WLR 80. Hannah v Peel (1945) 1 KB 509. Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 Link Lending Limited v Ms Susan Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424. National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] UKHL 1. Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H & C 121. Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004. Walsingham’s Case (1573) Hil. 15 Eliz. Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756. Statute: (All of which are not included in the footnotes) Land Charges Act 1972. Land Registration Act 2002. Law of Property Act 1925. Statute of Frauds 1667. Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. Eddie Mabo’s introduction of the Native Title Act has provided Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to state claim to their land, legally recognising the Indigenous and the Torres Strait Islanders as the traditional owners.
Eddie Mabo is widely known for his plight to regain land rights for both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In 1982, along with four other Meriam people from Murray Island, he initiated legal proceedings in the Queensland Supreme Court claiming customary ownership of their lands on Murray Island. This original claim was rejected by the Supreme Court, but rather than backing down Mabo chose to present his case to the High Court of Australia. The basis of his case explores how “’Australia’ is morally illegitimate to the extent that it is founded on European denial of the continent’s prior ownership by indigenous people…” (Rowse, 1994)
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
Does the introduction of a system of registration of title remove the need for the law to recognise possessory or equitable interests in land? Why? Why not?
Before the Indigenous Australians gained Land Rights in Australia, in 1788 the East Coast of Australia was claimed by the English Monarch and was called Crown Land. The reason behind the English Monarch's claim for Crown Land was that they believed that that land was “terra nullius”, meaning land belonging to no one”. In 1976 the Northern Territory was the first state government to allow Indigenous Australians to claim Crown Land and reserves in the Northern Territory that no one had the use for. Commission and increased funding was also granted to Indigenous Australians through the 1975 Racial Discrimination act made by the Whitlam Government. These acts and decisions were then overruled against in 1985 by the High Court. Article 8 “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution of law” and Article 16 “the family (...) is entitled to protection by society and the State” of the UDHR are evidence of the discrimination Indigenous Australians faced by the government as they were once again stripped away of their human rights and land titles. Indigenous Australians only began to grant land from the English Monarch after the case between Mabo and others versus the State of Queensland took place that decided in favour of
For land to be registered to a person in Australia it must be registered under the Torrens Title Registry; a sector of government that holds the entire land title register and thus is evidence to prove the fee-simple ownership rights (freehold title) as the owner. The Torrens Title is ‘a system of title by registration’, meaning a buyer can only receive the title of a parcel of land if it is first registered (Breskvar v Wall, 1971). Once an owner is registered into the title of the land, the owner has indefeasibility, meaning that once a title is registered to the registered proprietor it cannot be effected by any previous defects that may have existed in the title prior to registration (Stewart, C. 2009). The significance of this registration
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
This is a list of explications--things a North American reader might need to know in order to make most sense out of Haydn Middleton's The Lie of the Land. I re-read the novel and made a list of unclear references or ambiguous words or terms. I included the page number and a short explanation of the context; I then proffered each word with the definition I was able to find!
person receiving the land, had to go through ceremony in which they would say that they
The Doctrine of terra nullius is “land that is uninhibited” or “land that belongs to no-one” was used in association with the original British Settlers. When the British settlers arrived, a lot of issues had risen as they ignored the indigenous Australians and regarded them as “not human” who owned land even though they had practiced traditions and customs for hundreds and thousands of years. The British treated Australia as terra Nullius. However due to the doctrine of Terra Nullius it states that Indigenous Australians could not sell or assign any land, nor could any individual person to retain or acquire it, besides from the distribution of royalty. According to international law the British were only able to take possession of a country through only 3 different ways. 1- If the country was uninhabited meaning that British could claim ownership of that land 2- if the country was inhabited Britain would have to seek permission from the owners of the land. In this case it would be the Aboriginal people and they would have to purchase it for ...
Land rights are defined as the entitlement to inhabit and use the land. Indigenous Australian communities seek to gain land rights or “Native Title” over certain parts of Australian land. This allows the Indigenous Australians the right to hunt, fish and inhabit the land and also gives them the right to contribute to decisions over construction, fishing or mining of...
Definition:Land is the property, land, structures, air rights over the area, and underground rights underneath the area. The term land implies genuine, or physical, property.
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
One of the special concepts in land law is of overriding interests. The standard practice in the English land law is all the interest and rights affecting or is binding over particular a land should be registered in the Register. However, the concept of overriding interest denotes that there are interests which are binding on the owner (the registered proprietor) regardless of not being formally registered. It was introduced because in that era it was though that it would be unreasonable and unjust to overlook such rights and interest enjoyed. Overriding interests need not be registration to bind the legal owner of the land. Therefore, if the land is sold to another person the interests and rights would not be lost. It can be said that overriding by nature are unregistered if they are registered they will cease to be an overriding interest.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...