Within the common law of Australia, adverse possession is described as when a person who occupies a parcel of land owned by another for a period of time, adversely to the interest of the registered proprietor, that person is entitled to make an application that the land is transferred to them.
Under common law, the basic elements for which adverse possession is established are;
- Actual Possession: The registered owner of the land has a cause of action for trespass, and the inhabitant must act as though they are in control and full ownership of the property and land.
- Continuous and uninterrupted: The current occupant must have continuous possession and use of the land. Occasional possession with periods of inactivity fails to be considered
…show more content…
The Statute of Limitations states the time period which is required for each jurisdiction in order for adverse possession to be claimed. In Western Australia, the time period is 12 years, unless the owner is under a specific form of disability, where the period is 30 years. It is irrelevant whether the true owner realises that he or she has been dispossessed. Also in Western Australia, adverse possession cannot be claimed against the crown.
In JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham , the defendant initially took possession of valuable farming and grazing land pursuant to a license which later expired. After the expiration of the license, Graham was asked to vacate the premises, which he did not. Graham remained on the land and continued to run cattle and cut hay which he was originally permitted to do under the license, however, he also conducted other activities which were not specifically permitted under the license. It was found that legal possession comprises the elements of factual possession and the animus possidendi, and that proof of acts of the user inconsistent with the purpose to which the true owner intends to put the land is unnecessary. The House of Lords found that the Grahams were the lawful owners of the land by adverse possession as Pye failed to take possession of his
…show more content…
This case discussed the presumptions of adverse possession, and that it must be an actual possession, of the land or property, which is inconsistent with the rights of the true owner. It was also discussed certain circumstances which will determine the character and weight of the acts of occupation and user on which the claim is based. Vital considerations to determine the outcome of the case are; the location, the size and the use which an owner might make reasonably be expected. However as suggested in JA Pye, the only way in which the intention of the true owner to use the land for a particular purpose at a future date may become relevant is if the alleged possessor knows of such an
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
Tooher, Joycey, ‘Jubilant Jamie and the Elephant Egg: Acquisition of Title by Finding’ (1998) 6 Australian Property Law Journal 117
Assessment of the Statement that Property is a Power Relationship Between People Property is the right to possess, enjoy or use a determinant thing, and includes the right of excluding others from doing the same. The concept of ownership or property has no single or widely accepted definition. Like any other concept it has great weight in public discourse and the popular usage varies broadly. Property is frequently conceived as a 'bundle of rights and obligations.' Property is stressed as not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things.
I take ownership to include unrestricted private use of an object. Of course my definition excludes the possibility of owning a
Despite protecting millions of acres of wilderness, this act provided for the numerous groups of people affected by the establishment of this law. Stipulations regarding the use of protected lands by private landowners were made. People living inside the park lands were guaranteed the right to subsistence hunting and fishing, as well as the guaranteed access to their lands. This right of access is the main concern for this argument, as it is a major management issue for park officials and land owners alike.
Contemporary common law approaches as identified by Fletcher recognises two elements of harm and intent; the ‘unlicensed acquisition of another’s property’ and intent to cause the harm. In doing so the law has covered a wider range of acts not just those which result is a measurable loss. As per the case of Llich; “Larceny is committed by a person who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent at the time of such taking permanently to deprive the owner thereof ...” In basic terms the Actus Reus elements include; tangible property capable of being stolen, belonging to another, asported or carried away without owner’s consent.
3. According to the federal statutes, as well as common case law, those lines remain fixed in perpetuity from the time the first property rights are conveyed.
One of the special concepts in land law is of overriding interests. The standard practice in the English land law is all the interest and rights affecting or is binding over particular a land should be registered in the Register. However, the concept of overriding interest denotes that there are interests which are binding on the owner (the registered proprietor) regardless of not being formally registered. It was introduced because in that era it was though that it would be unreasonable and unjust to overlook such rights and interest enjoyed. Overriding interests need not be registration to bind the legal owner of the land. Therefore, if the land is sold to another person the interests and rights would not be lost. It can be said that overriding by nature are unregistered if they are registered they will cease to be an overriding interest.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia can be treated un equal from, criminal justice system, and certain a law must be addressed. The customary Law reflects equality amongst indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. This essay will explore the customary law in Australia, and the benefits and critiques that is proposes. First the essay will explore what the customary law in Australia is. Secondly it will explore other countries that have allowed indigenous people to implement their own justice system in practice, it will explore the indigenous right that were recognized in New Zealand. It will then then argue that customary law should be used in Australia and be strengthened in aboriginal communities however there are some
REFLECTIONS OF TODAY’S CIVIL LAW CODE AS A METHOD OF LEGAL ORGANISATION AND AN ALTERNATIVE TO AUSTRALIAN COMMON LAW XIAO-XIAO KINGHAM INTRODUCTION As society advances with time, Australia’s established common law system could arguably be failing to serve the people as effectively and efficiently as what was once intended. Adaption to present circumstance through assessing the nature, institutes, ideologies, conception and application of law is likely essential to maintain its relevance in the near future. Some have even gone so far as to suggest abandoning common law together and instead replacing it with the widespread and historically ingrained civil law.
When the possessor of property intentionally places the property in a certain location but forgets to retrieve it, the property is:
Importantly, estates allow the division of property interest and the use of land by people other than the original owner, for instance in cases of leasehold or life estates. Further, estates also provide a simple and a certain framework for the alienation, by will or trade, of property interests. Interestingly, it has been argued that estates would continue to exist despite a possible abolition of the doctrine of tenure, in other words, the fragmentation of land rights on the basis of time would remain unchanged in the absence of the tenure
The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.
His Lordship stated that the exception to the presumption of innocence is only limited to “offences arising under enactments which prohibit the doing of an act save in specified circumstances or by persons of specified class or with specified qualifications or with the licence or permission of specified authority”. This could justify the decision in the case which concerning licence to sell intoxicated liquors in which the court placed the legal burden on the defendant to prove that he had licence even though the register of licences was available to the
There are three different ways someone can have possession of something. There is possession of having an item or object, owning an item or object or controlling that item or object. To own possession of an item means that one has obtained a piece a property. An example to this is when a person goes to the store and purchases a watch. As soon as they purchase their new watch they will also get handed a receipt as well as ownership of that watch. The second form of possession is to have possession of anything....