Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971. tony . 2) in which an Australian court had ruled on a traditional land claim based on extensive evidence of the culture, The ALRA resulted from Australia's first native title case, the 1971 Gove Land Rights Case, which challenged a bauxite mine and refinery in north-east Arnhem Land (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd [1972-73] ALR 65; (1971) 17 FLR 141). Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. They claimed that their customary law provided Trove is a collaboration between the National Library of Australia and hundreds of Partner organisations around Australia. A Critical Analysis' (1996) 18 Syd Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. In Robyn Bartel and Jennifer Carter (Eds. (a) The Plaintiff Milirrpum is the head of the Rirratjingu clan of the Australian aboriginal natives and brings this action on behalf of himself and other members of that clan. 2"). Blackburn J stated that: If ever a system could be called 'a government of laws, and not of men', it is that shown to me in the evidence before me … Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 (Supreme Court of the Northern Territory) ('Milirrpum ') upheld Cooper and was the only trial decision in municipal law that touched these same issues. Graham, N. (2021). decisions of Gowans J in Borowski v Quayle [1966] VR 382 and of Muirhead J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 and the cases that have followed them is that a liberal attitude will be taken by the courts when called upon to receive technical evidence based on customary professional means of acquiring skills and knowledge. Contract Law Deleted Pages.pdf. the Letters Patent originally limited t.'e powers of the South Australitt legislature, they had been subsequently repealed and replaced.12 Finally, Territory legislation acquiring minerals and validating th mineral leases granted to Nabalco Pty Ltd was held to be valid.13 ,'_ The plaintiffs had been defeated on every substantive issueand~di' granted to Nabalco Pty Ltd by the Commonwealth over the lands of their clans in East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory. (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 [4]) The Gove Land Rights case created wider public awareness of the claim of the Yolgnu and the legal problems of Indigenous people throughout Australia. Blackburn J. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd[1] (the 'Gove land rights case') was the first litigation on native title in Australia. Although this case was dismissed, the findings and recommendations of the subsequent Woodward inquiry formed the basis of the legislative regime of land rights introduced in the Northern Territory through the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) 2.34 Some states established statutory land rights schemes. juneau cabin reservations; napoleon heckbrenner und hauptbrenner gleichzeitig; table football monthly danielle. 10 Mabo v Queensland ,, The Yolngu people . Filters. CASE LIST Defining Property National Provincial Bank Ltd. v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 Milirrpum v Nabalco (1971) 17 FLR 141 Yanner v. Study Resources. (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd & The Commonwealth (1971) 17 FLR 141) is particularly important to Sharp's approach: '[Williams'] experience of courtroom misunder­ standings and her historical study of European concepts of property are distilled in this seminal study, which has a link with this book' (p xxi). A similar thesis has been proposed by a number of writers such as D Ritter, 'The "Rejection of Terra Nullius" in Maha. chelsea fc marketing strategy. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (Gove Land Rights Case) (1971) 17 FLR 141 Morris v Baron & Co [1918] AC 1 Moseley v Davies (1822) 11 Price 162 National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Limited v Cheung (1983) 1 ACLC 1326 NEC Information Systems Australia Pty Limited v Linton 7 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. Northern Territory of Australia v Alyawarr, Kaytetye, Warumungu, Wakaya Native Title Claim Group [2005] 145 FCAFC 135. 3 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth (1971) 17 FLR 141; Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. The interpretation of evidence Referred to throughout as the Aboriginal Land Rights Case. Another important step towards native title had been taken. 8 Coe v Commonwealth of Australia (1979) 53 ALJR 403, 408, 411, 412. 12 L Behrendt, Achieving Social Justice: Indigenous Rights and Australia's Future . That decision did not disturb the position of the Crown as Explore the story of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia in all its diversity. Nabalco was formed from a consortium including the Swiss-based Alusuisse (70%) and the Australian company CSR Limited. Nabalco Pty . In respect of indigenous peoples, his Honour's Northern Territory decision in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (Gove Land Rights Case)1 is perhaps most readily recalled but I noted with interest the following fond recollections of Colin McDonald QC: What was interesting about those days was that the Northern Territory Supreme Court was, in 1 See Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1970) 17 FLR 141 at 267 (Blackburn J). and Nabalco Pty. At the same time, the High Court held that the common law of Australia did recognise a concept of native title to land. Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths) [2017] FCAFC 106. 11 AG v Brown (1847) 1 Legge 312; Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. Ltd. Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty. 18 See Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 at 223. Connect with us. Mr Priestley concludes that in Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd there was not evidence of such similarity before the court. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) (Gove case): In 1963 the Yolgnu Aboriginal people of Yirrkala, Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory sent two petitions to the Commonwealth Parliament in an attempt to prevent bauxite mining at Gove Peninsula, on land that was previously part of the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve. Ltd . [714] If this assumption reflects the common law, clearly some change is needed. 15 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 ("Milirrpum"). 8 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 [153]. 7 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. 2. On the 'stolen generations' and the relationship between those policies and the dominant culture of denial see eg . 9 Mabo v Queensland [No. I. upon the acquisition by the Crown of a colony (Attorney-General v Brown 1847: 30; Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd 1971: 141; Hasluck 1988: 101-2). 4 Attorney-General NSW v Brown (1847) 2 Legge 312; Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141; Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 (CLR) 1 47; Bradbrook, MacCallum, Moore and Grattan (2011) 41. Can you list the rights that would indicate a proprietary interest identified by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141? File. The influence of Milirrpum was apparent in the approach emphasising traditional spiritual attachment to land and the substantial role for anthropological evidence. The major division of property is into real property, that is land, and personal property, namely moveable objects and intangible property. Explore. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 was the first case on native title in Australia. 12 note particularly the conclusion that the doctrine of communal native title "does not form, and never has formed, part of the law of any part of Australia": at 244-245. skyfactory 4 guide pdf; rust red card respawn time. However it must be stressed that the Milirrpumcase was decided by a single judge in the Northern Territory Supreme Court and was not appealed to the High Court of Australia. Sampi v State of Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 [981]. Milirrpum and Others v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Commonwealth of Australia, Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Judge (s) sitting. Blackburn J. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971. Nevertheless, there was resistance to a possible national land rights scheme. Northern Territory Supreme Court - Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth, 1970. Milirrpum v . 5 See Harpum, Bridge & Dixon The Law of Real Property (2012) 22; Butt Land . Mabo and Others v The State of Queensland (No. On a more personal note, I would like to thank a special group of friends whose support and encouragement carried me through the more difficult days of this study's development. 1979] Does Aboriginal Law Now Run in Australia? That was a case which was decided by the High Court in 1988.9 The Mabo cases concerned 3 small islands in the Torres Strait. A similar thesis has been proposed by a number of writers such as D Ritter, 'The "Rejection of Terra Nullius" in Maha. 7312e178563d.pdf">[More Information]</a> Graham, N. (2021). The Queen [1996] 137 D.L.R.4th 289, Delgamuuku v. R [1991] 79 D.L.R.4th 185, R v. Sparrow [1990] 70 D.L.R.4th 385, Calder v. Attor-ney General of British Columbia [1973] 34 D.L.R.3d 145; and customary fishing. INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION . Nabalco Corporation had been granted a twelve-year mining lease which would allow it to extract bauxite from parts of Arnhem Land, including the Gove Peninsula. Supreme Court. Use and enjoyment, exclude others from it and alienate. Do you understand what is meant by the 'bundle of rights' metaphor? Exploration Co (Pty) Ltd v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd 1996 4 SA 499 . (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141, also known as the Gove Land Rights Case). 27 June 2021; Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 was the first case on native title in Australia. 5 polly ave, clarksville, pa; tattoo designs for girls on wrist; evolve health insurance; how does the skin regulate body temperature brainly. It was dismissed: Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd(1971) 17FLR 141 (the Nabalco case). (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 [4]) The Gove Land Rights case created wider public awareness of the claim of the Yolgnu and the legal problems of Indigenous people throughout Australia. and Milirrpum,. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1969) 14 F.L.R. In particular: 'as indigenous renaissances are emboldened, as they create momentum, the reaction/resistance to the singular f Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 35 universalising discourses of the coloniser reflects their anti-pluralism. 16 T Rowse, After Mabo: Interpreting Indigenous Traditions, Melbourne University Press (1993) p 1; see also P Patton's discussion of the 'values' question in "After Mabo" (1994) 27(4) Southern Review 511. Can you list the rights that would indicate a proprietary interest identified by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141? Osca Monaghan; Political Science. The Yolngu people brought an action against Nabalco Pty Ltd, claiming they enjoyed sovereign rights over lands in the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, which had been obtained by Nabalco from the Federal Government (pursuant to a 42-year mining lease). In Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, for instance, Justice Blackburn held that that property in its many forms generally implies the right to use or enjoy, the right to exclude others, or to alienate. They challenged the validity of Main Menu; by School; by Literature Title; . See eg, R Kidd, Black Lives, Government Lies (2000); B Rosser, Dreamtime Nightmares (1987). XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd ... 274 Yick Wo v Hopkins ... 112 . Nabalco, (North Australian Bauxite and Alumina Company) was a mining and extraction company set up in 1964 to exploit bauxite reserves on the Gove Peninsula, Australia. Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco (1971) FLR 141 at 171 Categories of Property Adapted from Gray et al 2012 Fig 2.1Privateproperty Realty Corporeal(eg land, buildings,fixtures) Incorporeal(eg easements) Personalty Chattelspersonal Choses inpossession(tangibles) Choses in action (intangibles)Chattels real(eg some leases) Ancestors of the indigenous Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd,2 that at the time of European occupation Australia was terra nullius, or land belonging to nobody. In determining compensation for cultural loss, Edelman J observed in Northern Territory v Griffiths (2019) (Timber Creek) that: 312 Expressed more fully, it is compensation for the value of the loss of attachment to country and rights to live on, and . Prior on behalf of the Juru (Cape Upstart) People v State of . The interpretation of evidence The plaintiffs brought an action, seeking to protect their right to perform their sacred rituals on a piece of land 3 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth (1971) 17 FLR 141; Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. To Russ Williams, thank you for coffee breaks, candid advice, and nights . 141, 253. society. Teaching private law in a climate crisis. relation to Australia, that issue was addressed in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd,11 a decision of Blackburn J sitting as a single judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. John Fogarty and Jacinta Dwyer It is 40 years since the first land rights claim by Aboriginal people was instituted in Australia. 11 Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLr 141. Has PDF. Amended statement of claim, 16 March 1970 "1. The High Court in Mabo took the view that the British Crown's acquisition of sovereignty over a colony on the land mass of Australia Another important step towards native title had been taken. people pursued their land rights through the courts in Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty. Use and enjoyment, exclude others from it and alienate. tony . 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 100 ("Mabo No. The clans, although without an identifiable sovereign, a law-making body such as a parliament, a system of courts . TOPIC 1: CONCEPTS OF PROPERTY Features of Property Case: Milirrpum v Nabalco (1971) Facts: The Federal Government granted mining leases to the defendant without consulting the plaintiffs, Aboriginal people. Dephysicalised Property and Shadow Places. 5 The anniversary date of the the Mabo decision (Mabo v Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1 ("Mabo (No. Blackburn J. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971. 9 This position was supported by the decision in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141; [1972-73] ALR 65 which is discussed in Part 1, text immediately following nn 220ff. Title: imageREAL Capture Author: imageREAL Capture Created Date: 9/29/2009 1:08:28 PM . Wik Peoples v State of Queensland; Thayorre Peoples v State of Queensland [1996] HCA 40. Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd. (1971) 17 F.L.R. Ltd. and the Commonwealth of Australia (Gove land rights case) : a claim by Aborigines that their interests in certain land had been invaded unlawfully by the defendants / Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Law Book Co Sydney 1971 Neowarra v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 1402. COMMENT: While the decision led to the recognition of a form of native title in Australia, it wasn't defined by the High Court. Objections to the admissibility of their evidence had to be dismissed on other, special, grounds. juneau cabin reservations; napoleon heckbrenner und hauptbrenner gleichzeitig; table football monthly danielle. In Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd,6 better known as the Gove Land Rights Case, his Honour was the first to consider the possibility of native title. The decision of Justice Richard Blackburn ruled against the claimants on a number of issues of law and fact, rejecting the doctrine of Aboriginal title recognizing that in the law of the time of British colonisation . Dr Hookey in his article "The Gove Land Rights Case"1 made a detailed analysis of the judgment of Blackburn J. in M ilirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd.2 He dealt particularly with the finding of Blackburn J. 10; No.2, Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia (1971) 17 F.L.R. Do you understand what is meant by the 'bundle of rights' metaphor? be extracted from their traditional land. A Critical Analysis' (1996) 18 Syd Campaigns to change the law to provide just answers for Indigenous people increased. Australia's free online research portal. and the Commonwealth of Australia (1 97 1) . 142 (2006) 13 Australian Property Law . In 1971 it was found that the yolgnu traditional relationship to land could not be recognised as a proprietary right under Australian common law. Counter- hegemonic discourses can, if they are monolithic, become hegemonic in themselves. The middle part is concerned with Milirrpum v Nabalco, and the idea is advanced that Milirrpum created a crisis of truth, after which the law was openly perceived to be discriminatory in its application. The ALRA resulted from Australia's first native title case, the 1971 Gove Land Rights Case, which challenged a bauxite mine and refinery in north-east Arnhem Land (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd [1972-73] ALR 65; (1971) 17 FLR 141). organic parts of one indissoluble whole (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 at 167). AusTRAlIAN NATIvE TITlE ANThRopoloGy 136 . Facts Aboriginal groups based at Yirrkala on the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory brought an action in the Northern Territory Supreme Court to assert their continuing ownership of their traditional lands. 10 Mabo, above n 6, at CLR 45-52 per Brennan J; 80, 81, 102-4 per Deane and Gaudron; 180 per Toohey J; 122-3 per Dawson J. 141; Indigenous constitutional rights . 1 Property Summary: PROPERTY Property: is the institution by means of which societies regulate access to material resources Yanner v Eaton (1999) HC: 'Property' does not refer to a thing; it is a description of a legal relationship with a thing 'A legally endorsed concentration of power over things and resources' A property/proprietary right generally includes: (Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty . Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 Mabo v Queensland . Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd ... 136 Mdnaco de Gallicchio. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1. Sign up to the AIATSIS Newsletter Subscribe. 26 A private members bill was introduced to the Queensland Parliament on 19 November 1998 which seeks to remove from the Legislative Standards Act 1992(Qld) the specific requirement that Queensland legislation must be drafted in a way that has sufficient regard for Aboriginal tradition and Island custom. In Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, for instance, Justice Blackburn held that that property in its many forms generally implies the right to use or enjoy, the right to exclude others, or to alienate. This line of cases was ignored in Mabo. v . The traditional owners of skyfactory 4 guide pdf; rust red card respawn time. 15 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 ("Milirrpum"). 4 Northern Territory Aboriginal Land and Sea Action Plan 2 These are approximate figures sourced from the Northern Territory Surveyor-General 3 Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 4 Common law is a collection of court decisions developed over hundreds of years by Australian superior courts, English courts and the courts of other countries that have 5 polly ave, clarksville, pa; tattoo designs for girls on wrist; evolve health insurance; how does the skin regulate body temperature brainly. The lack of any appeal from Milirrpum meant that these scant judicial statements from Cooper on the basis of British More Filters. on her behalf and on behalf of her granddaughter Ximena Vicario . and Blackburn, Richard Arthur. It could be said to be the term used to describe the common law rights and interests of any particular group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait 4 In the decision of Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, Blackburn J found that the system of land-holding and kinship rules of the North-East Arnhem Land people constituted a system of laws. 163 stated by the Judicial Committee in In re Southern RhodesidJ [a Judge (s) sitting. The case was also referenced as background to the plot in the 1997 comedy The Castle. It provided a dramatised account of the case, focusing on the effect it had on Mabo and his family. They brought a Federal Court case, Milirrpum & Others v. Nabalco Pty Ltd1, to establish ownership of the land in accordance with traditional Aboriginal law. In law Australia is generally regarded as settled, a legal principle laid down in Cooper v Stuart7in 1889 and followed by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltdin 1971. In Australian Property Law Journal, 29(3), 335-351. 2. Faith v The Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) (1982) 154 CLR 120 per Mason ACJ and Brennan J, 135, 132 and Murphy J, 151; Western Australia v Ward and Ors (1992) HCA 28 Kirby J, 586 and also Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 per Blackburn J, 167 and Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc v South Australia (1995) 64 SASR 551 per years since 'Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd' (1971) 17 FLR 141. More Filters. ), Handbook . Crown lands rather than as a purchase of Aboriginal lands: Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLr 141 at 257. SF26-7_5.pdf (pdf, 949.71 KB) Manuscript finding aid. Shop with us. Campaigns to change the law to provide just answers for Indigenous people increased. Shop . 3 Northern . Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd [1971] 17 FLR 141 at 272-3 Trigger word Native title. In Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd [713] it was assumed that the Aboriginal clan leaders who gave evidence were not experts. The major division of property is into real property, that is land, and personal property, namely moveable objects and intangible property. 19 This confusion emerged in the Wi Parata line of cases (esp Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877) 3 NZJur(NS)SC 72), persisted through such decisions as Re Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461, and only began to be clarified in Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Officer [1986] 1 NZLR 680. Nabalco was renamed Alcan Gove Pty Ltd in 2002. Finally, the signifi- cance of terra nullius in Mabo itself is considered in the third part. Download 'Gove plan is 1788 colonialism, claims Coombs' 293.6 kb pdf [ PDF | 293.6 kb ] In March 1970 the substantive case — Milirrpum and Others v Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia — began in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. NATIVE TITLE AND MILIRRPUM v NABALCO PTYLTD -THE BLACKBURN JUDGMENT What was the legal precedent facing the High Court when it considered Mabo'lStrictly speaking, there was only one case: Milirrpum,which had been presided over by Blackburn J of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. 16 T Rowse, After Mabo: Interpreting Indigenous Traditions , Melbourne University Press (1993) p1; see also 2)"), where the High Court recognised for the first time in Australian . Milirrpum and Others v Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia (1971) 17 FLR 141 at 245 ("Milirrpum").