Mabo v Queensland (No 2)
(1992) 175 CLR 1 · [1992] HCA 23
High Court of Australia · 1992
Headnote
The High Court held that the common law of Australia recognises a form of native title reflecting the traditional laws and customs of Indigenous peoples, rejecting the doctrine that Australia was terra nullius at settlement.
Bench
Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Facts
Eddie Mabo and other Meriam people sought a declaration of their traditional rights to the Murray Islands. Queensland argued that the annexation of the islands in 1879 vested absolute beneficial ownership in the Crown.
Held
Native title survives the acquisition of sovereignty and is extinguished only by a clear and plain legislative or executive intention. The interests of the Meriam people in the Murray Islands were recognised at common law.
Key passage
“The common law of this country recognizes a form of native title which, in the cases where it has not been extinguished, reflects the entitlement of the indigenous inhabitants, in accordance with their laws or customs, to their traditional lands.”
175 CLR 1, 15 (Brennan J)
Citation formats
AGLC full
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 15 (Brennan J).
AGLC short
Mabo (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 15.
Medium neutral
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23.
Authorities considered
- Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd
(1971) 17 FLR 141
- Cooper v Stuart
(1889) 14 App Cas 286