Students
Legal referencing made easy.
Ask CaseWise to review and revise your footnotes, then check the changes against AGLC4 and the original sources.
Check authorities against the public record and review the available source links.
← ReferencingAccept allApply & export
Referencing reviewj / k next · a accept · d dismiss · u undoExit review
AGLC4 · CHECK · 16 CITATIONS · 3 VERIFIED · 5 CORRECTED IN THE RUN · 0 ACCEPTED THIS SESSION1 ACCEPTED THIS SESSION2 ACCEPTED THIS SESSION
2468101214161820
Page 3 of 7Native title · assessment 2
…provided the connection with the land has been maintained, and the interest has not been extinguished by an inconsistent grant.
Native title was recognised at common law in Mabo v Queensland [No 2].1 The earlier claim in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd failed on the authorities as they then stood.2 The question is therefore not whether the doctrine exists, but whether the connection relied on has survived the grants made since.
Restraints on alienation carry both public and private dimensions, and the distinction matters to the remedy sought.3
1.Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1.
2.Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Ors (1971) 17 FLR 141, at 273.Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141, 273.
3.Scott Grattan, 'Revisiting Restraints on Alienation: Public and Private Dimensions' (2015) 41(3) Monash University Law Review 67, 84.
Checking 16 citations against AustLII2 suggestions on this page
Fix · Footnote 1 · AGLC4 r 2.1.13
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.
Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1.
A numbered proceeding takes square brackets (AGLC4 rule 2.1.13): "[No 2]", not "(No 2)".
AcceptDismiss
Footnote 1 accepted · r 2.1.13
Fix · Footnote 2 · AGLC4 rr 2.1.1, 1.1.6
Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Ors (1971) 17 FLR 141, at 273.
Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141, 273.
Cite the first party only, and a pinpoint takes no "at" (AGLC4 rules 2.1.1, 1.1.6).
AcceptDismiss
Footnote 2 accepted · rr 2.1.1, 1.1.6