This statement shows Aboriginals are inferior and have no rights or sovereignty over the land. Therefore the Europeans are superior by law to them. Lambert (2012. pg12) writes that Europeans regarded Torres Islanders and Aboriginals way of life and land use was “not being used in a fashion that European legal and property systems approved”. The information from both sources shows Europeans confirmed that land is not owned by anyone, unless there is a legal document to prove ownership therefore Europeans believed Aboriginals and Torres Islanders did not own the land even though they live there. Lambert (2012) suggests Europeans were “very liberal” compared to the Torres Islander and Aboriginals. The Proclamation 1835 was written after the Batman Deed however shows no evidence there was a treaty previously between John Batman and Dutigalla people. This also demonstrates Torres Islanders sovereignty is not regarded by the Europeans. (WC: 196). Jeff Lambert states the land was perceived as “unoccupied land” as “Aborigines demonstrated their affinity with the land in sustainability, cultural and spiritual terms” (Lambert 2012.pg 13), these actions were not
In Equity according to (Renals v Colishaw) (1878)12 the benefit of a covenant will pass if the covenant touches and concerns land of the covanantee; and the benefit of the covenant was; annexed to the land of the covenantee; or expressly assigned to the successor in title; or the land in question is part of a building scheme.
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)
An issue facing society is whether the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), is sufficient in balancing the rights of Indigenous Australians and the rights of current land owners. To determine whether legislation is sufficient and fair, an investigation into the current societal view points needs to be considered by legislators, with an evaluation into the ways in which other societies cater to the needs of Indigenous land owners should be made. This information then allows recommendations and changes to be debated, to therefore to ensure more equitable legislation on land rights within Australia.
Kelo v. New London Development Corporation has a number of key features that need to be addressed. The issues that this case addressed were the development plan, acquisition of the land, and the court challenge brought by the owners of the 15 condemned parcels. Each of these points play an important role in why the Supreme Court came to the verdict it did, and why the owners of the parcels were upset.
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
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.
In Palgo Holdings v Gowans , the High Court considered the distinction between a security in the form of a pawn or pledge and a security in the form of a chattel mortgage. The question was whether section 6 of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW) (‘the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act’) extended to a business that structured its loan agreements as chattel mortgages. In a four to one majority (Kirby J dissenting) the High Court found that chattel mortgages fell outside the ambit of section 6 of the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act. However, beyond the apparent simplicity of this decision, the reasoning of the majority raises a number of questions. Was it a “turning back to literalism” as Kirby J suggested, or was it simply a case where the court declares that parliament has missed its target?
claims, land through an occasional action of Congress to return control over land to particular
In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all the Indigenous people in Australia prior to European contact. To make the legal position of landholders and the processes that must be followed in claiming native title clear, the federal government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Native Title, which was drafted in 1993, attempted to provide a fair and just method of dealing with land in the future. However one of the fundamental flaws of the native title system is that the concept of native title was based on the prejudiced principle that the Crown had the power to extinguish traditional indigenous ownership of the land. Although the government could have been able to amend the flaws of the Native Title Act following the High Court’s decision in relation to the Wik Case, which laid the rules for co-existence and reconciliation of shared interests in the land, they failed to do so. Amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 undermined any benefits the Indigenous people could have received, and provided the already-powerful non-Indige...
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 ...
...tural value and in the Far North. While s.5 of the Act explicitly mentions at least 225,000 square kilometres of the Far North, that would create in “an interconnected network of protected areas designated in community based land use plans” , the Act, under s.9(16), establishes it as a factor to be considered in granting a ministerial approval. Thus, in reality, the Act gives the Minister a significant amount of discretion, which would allow the Minister to either set aside the 225,000 square kilometres of land in the Far North as protected areas or, after considering the importance of environmental protection, nevertheless, approve LUPs that do not create the suggested protected areas. Thus, NAN’s claim that s.12 of the Far North Act essentially freezes modern development by setting aside half of its ancestral territory as protected areas is not, per se, accurate.
While no system is completely perfect the ALS is designed with the aim to provide fairness and justice. To this extent, it can be said that the ALS is based on fairness and justice. In contrast it could also be argued that the very adoptions of the ALS means it cannot be based on fairness and justice. The ALS was inherited from England, on invasion, under the doctrine of terra nullius, decreeing that Australia was ‘uncultivated land, desert or land belonging to no one’ (Miles and Dowler, 2011 pp 8-18). This gave no fair or just rights to the occupying, Aboriginal custodians of the land and their laws. It was not until the high court case of Mabo v Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1, that the concept of terra nullius was rejected and, in an attempt to restore fairness and justice, that partial recognition of Aboriginal land rights were given. (Miles and Dowler, 2011 pp 17-18). Despite its unfair and unjust reception, looking to the ALS’s structure and operations reveals that in effect, for the most part the ALS is based on fairness and justice.
The process, however, brings tension for people who are threatened with dispossession. The compulsory acquisition of land for development purpose may ultimately bring benefits to society but it is disruptive to people whose property is acquired. In countries
On the one hand, participatory approach to land use planning can provide openings for the decentralized administration of land management and enhance legal protection of local land rights through contributing to formal recognition of existing land tenure systems. According to Chigbu et al, (2015) four functions of land use planning that directly links to tenure security. (1) Its capacity to identify or determine land areas, parcels and uses and users. (2) Its propensity to enable documentation of land areas, parcels, rights, restrictions and responsibilities. (3) The opportunities it provides for stakeholder involvement, compensation of claims and community participation. (4) Its impact on land value, land markets and credit opportunities. On the other hand, land use planning, promoting sustainable natural resource use and environmental management are generally part of the mandate of local governments. And these prerogatives often tend to be weakly developed, both legally and with respect to capacity building and methodology (Hilhorst 2010). Unclear property rights and tenure insecurity are the major constraints to the potential of successful land use planning. According to UN-Habitat (2008, p. 17), poor land use planning associated with insecurity of tenure and incompletely specified land rights leads to problems of air and water-borne pollution from agricultural and industrial land use. Though there is a