Implications of the Crown's radical title for statutory regimes regulating the alienation of Land: 'Crown Land' v 'Property of the Crown' Post-Mabo'
Secher, Ulla (2008) Implications of the Crown's radical title for statutory regimes regulating the alienation of Land: 'Crown Land' v 'Property of the Crown' Post-Mabo'. Monash University Law Review, 34 (1). pp. 9-52.
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
View at Publisher Website: http://www.law.monash.edu.au/monlr/
It is clear from the High Court's decisions in Wik and Ward that, for the purpose of the statutory regimes regulating the alienation of land in Australia, 'Crown land' means land in respect of which the Crown has 'radical title'. Although the concept of radical title had emerged in Mabo, it was not unequivocally clear whether it denoted a bare legal title sufficient to support the Crown's right to acquire and confer title or a full beneficial interest except to the extent of native title. This article argues that, because both legal authority and principle support the former interpretation of radical title in the context of general schemes of land regulation, the pre-Mabo view that statutory definitions of 'Crown land' refer to land which is the 'property' of the Crown no longer reflects the law in Australia. It will he seen that this conclusion is consistent with the High Court's treatment of residuary rights to, and resumptions of, Crown land in Wik and Ward respectively, as well as the policy and purpose of the legislation relating to Crown land and the post-Mabo High Court's analysis of it generally and, in particular, the statutory trespass provisions. It is also consistent with the constitutional settlement of the mid-19th century, by which the Crown's prerogatives to grant interests in land and to appropriate land to itself were displaced by statutory powers: although this effected a transfer of political power and not title, the statutory definition of 'Crown land', like the common law definition of 'waste lands', presupposed, rather than conferred, the Crown's title to unalienated land. Further support for the proposition that, irrespective of the presence of native title, the Crown must exercise its sovereign power before its radical title converts to full beneficial ownership, before 'Crown land' becomes 'Crown property', is provided by the Crown's power of eminent domain: a power which compliments the Crown '.'I radical title and shares the same underlying rationale.
|Item Type:||Article (Refereed Research - C1)|
|Keywords:||land law, post-Mabo|
|FoR Codes:||18 LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES > 1801 Law > 180124 Property Law (excl Intellectual Property Law) @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||94 LAW, POLITICS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES > 9499 Other Law, Politics and Community Services > 949999 Law, Politics and Community Services not elsewhere classified @ 100%|
|Deposited On:||12 Apr 2011 07:55|
|Last Modified:||12 Apr 2011 18:05|
Last 12 Months: 0
Repository Staff Only: item control page