Knowledge

Radical title

Source 📝

78:
by the British in 1788, the Crown did not acquire beneficial ownership over all the land the country but a mere radical title to it. This radical title did not extinguish native title, allowing the court to recognise it at the time of the judgment while also recognising the doctrine of tenure. All
79:
land grants subsequently made by the Crown were subject to tenure, but native title rights, having existed before acquisition of sovereignty, were not.
108:
Williams, David V. (15 April 2021). "Radical Title of the Crown and Aboriginal Title: North America 1763, New South Wales 1788, and New Zealand 1840".
74:, under which all rights to land ultimately derive from grants from the Crown and are not absolute. The court declared that on acquisition of 140: 70:
under Australian law. Radical title was used to explain how native title rights could co-exist with the doctrine of
44:
others from land and to transfer beneficial ownership of the land to itself or others, but by itself does not grant
37: 67: 41: 163: 62: 167: 186: 159: 8: 56:
While not the first time radical title was mentioned, the concept came to prominence in
136: 113: 33: 88: 57: 117: 180: 75: 71: 45: 25: 29: 135:(4 ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths. pp. 274–276. 178: 112:. Cambridge University Press. p. 260–285. 16:Ultimate right by The Crown to deal with land 149: 130: 107: 110:Common Law, Civil Law, and Colonial Law 101: 179: 66:, which recognised the existence of 40:. It grants the Crown the power to 13: 14: 198: 38:overseas plantations and colonies 162: at para 50-1, (1992) 175 124: 1: 94: 51: 7: 82: 10: 203: 131:Bartlett, Richard (2020). 133:Native Title in Australia 118:10.1017/9781108955195.011 156:Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 63:Mabo v Queensland (No 2) 24:is a concept in English 166:1 (3 June 1992), 160:[1992] HCA 23 46:beneficial ownership 36:to all land held in 194: 171: 153: 147: 146: 128: 122: 121: 105: 202: 201: 197: 196: 195: 193: 192: 191: 177: 176: 175: 174: 154: 150: 143: 129: 125: 106: 102: 97: 85: 60:in the case of 54: 28:that refers to 17: 12: 11: 5: 200: 190: 189: 173: 172: 148: 142:978-0409350920 141: 123: 99: 98: 96: 93: 92: 91: 89:Allodial title 84: 81: 58:Australian law 53: 50: 32:'s underlying 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 199: 188: 185: 184: 182: 169: 165: 161: 157: 152: 144: 138: 134: 127: 119: 115: 111: 104: 100: 90: 87: 86: 80: 77: 73: 69: 65: 64: 59: 49: 47: 43: 39: 35: 31: 27: 23: 22:Radical title 19: 155: 151: 132: 126: 109: 103: 68:native title 61: 55: 21: 20: 18: 187:Land tenure 76:sovereignty 168:High Court 95:References 26:common law 52:Australia 30:the Crown 181:Category 83:See also 42:alienate 139:  72:tenure 158: 34:title 137:ISBN 164:CLR 114:doi 183:: 48:. 170:. 145:. 120:. 116::

Index

common law
the Crown
title
overseas plantations and colonies
alienate
beneficial ownership
Australian law
Mabo v Queensland (No 2)
native title
tenure
sovereignty
Allodial title
doi
10.1017/9781108955195.011
ISBN
978-0409350920
[1992] HCA 23
CLR
High Court
Category
Land tenure

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.