Mabo+v+Queensland+(No+2)+(1992)

Facts
The Meriam people sought to be viewed as owners, possessors and occupiers and therefore people entitled to use and enjoy the islands in question. Essentially the Meriam people were asking for recognition of Native Title which would entail accepting the land was not //terra nullius// before settlement. According to the Meriam people, the land could not be 'settled' and perhaps something such as conquest or cession would have been a more appropriate description of what happened as those recognised property rights were already in place.

Held

 * There was a concept of title at CL
 * The source of NT was the traditional connection to or occupation of the land
 * The nature and content of NT was determined by the character of the connection or occupation under traditional laws or customs;
 * Thus, it was very much in opposition to the doctrine of tenure which sees land rights coming from the crown.
 * Repudiation of Absolute Ownership –The Majority in Mabo also rejected the proposition that immediately upon the acquisition of sovereignty full legal and beneficial ownership of all the lands of the colony vested with the crown.
 * However the HC went to great lengths to to state that the Radical Title by the British Crown will not be effected by this decision.
 * Thus, at the time of Sovereignty, the crown did not assume absolute ownership of land already occupied but did effect land that was not yet granted tenure over.
 * Land that was already granted tenure would remain unchanged thus real property interests in AU are still held in tenure from the crown.
 * Toohey – made the argument that CL Possessory title could form the basis for NT claims by indigenous Australians. But this hasn’t been pursued.
 * Therefore….The result was more of a limit to tenure, and not a refusal or recognition of the doctrine itself.