Reconciliation and Social Justice Library

[RSJ Home] [Global AustLII Search] [RSJ Database Search]
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] [Download]

HIGH COURT DECISION ON MABO - (XIV) THE ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF COMMON LAW NATIVE TITLE

As has been seen, common law native title-holders in an eighteenth century British Colony were in an essentially helpless position if their rights under their native title were disregarded or wrongly extinguished by the Crown. Quite apart from the inherent unlikelihood of such title-holders being in a position to institute proceedings against the British Crown in a British court, the vulnerability of the rights under native title resulted in art from the fact that they were personal rights susceptible to extinguishment by inconsistent grant by the Crown and in part from the immunity of the Crown from court proceedings. The vulnerability persists to the extent that it flows from the nature of the rights as personal. On the other hand, as legislative reforms increasingly subjected the Crown or a nominal defendant on its behalf to the jurisdiction of the courts and the liability for compensatory damages for a wrong done to a subject, the ability of native title-holders to protect and vindicate the personal rights under common law native title significantly increased. If common law native title is wrongfully extinguished by the Crown, the effect of those legislative reforms is that compensatory damages can be recovered provided the proceedings for recovery are instituted within the period allowed by applicable limitations provisions. if the common law native title has not been extinguished, the fact that the rights under it are true legal rights means that they can be vindicated, protected and enforced by proceedings in the ordinary courts.

In a case where the Crown or an trustee appointed by the Crown wrongly denies the existence or the extent of an existing common law native title or threatens to infringe the rights thereunder (e.g. by and inconsistent grant), the appropriate relief in proceedings brought by (or by a representative party or parties on behalf of) the native title-holders will ordinarily be declaratory only since it will be apparent that the Crown or the trustee, being bound by any declaration, will faithfully observe its terms. Further relief is, however, available where it is necessary to protect the rights of the title-holders. One example of such further relief is relief by way of injunction (299). Notwithstanding their personal nature and their special vulnerability to wrongful extinguishment by the Crown, the rights of occupation or use under common law native title can themselves constitute valuable property. Actual or threatened interference with their enjoyment can, in appropriate circumstances, attract the protection of equitable remedies. Indeed, the circumstances of a case may be such that, in a modern context, the appropriate form of relief is the imposition of a remedial constructive trust framed to reflect the incidents and limitations of the rights under the common law native title. The principle of the common law that pre-existing native rights are respected and protected will, in a case where the imposition of such a constructive trust is warranted, prevail over other equitable principles or rules to the extent that they would preclude the appropriate protection of the native title in the same way as that principle prevailed over legal rules which would otherwise have prevented the preservation of the title under the common law. In particular, rules relating to requirements of certainly and present entitlement of precluding remoteness of vesting my need to be adapted or excluded to the extent necessary to enable the protection of the rights under the native title.


[RSJ Home] [Global AustLII Search] [RSJ Database Search]
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] [Download]