“The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo”

Extinguishment has been a key issue in native title cases following the 1992 High Court decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2). In 2015, the High Court in Queensland v Congoo was equally divided in determining whether extinguishment of native title had occurred. Congoo involved an appeal from the Full...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Stephenson, Margaret
Format: Journal Article
Published: Thomson Reuters 2016
Online Access:http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2016/10/06/property-law-review-update-vol-6-pt-1/
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/73926
_version_ 1848763134250057728
author Stephenson, Margaret
author_facet Stephenson, Margaret
author_sort Stephenson, Margaret
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Extinguishment has been a key issue in native title cases following the 1992 High Court decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2). In 2015, the High Court in Queensland v Congoo was equally divided in determining whether extinguishment of native title had occurred. Congoo involved an appeal from the Full Federal Court which had held that certain military orders made during the Second World War did not extinguish native title. Accordingly, the Full Federal Court decision appealed from was affirmed. This article reviews the developing doctrine of common law extinguishment of native title law prior to the High Court’s decision in Congoo. The article then critically examines the High Court’s reasoning in Congoo regarding the interpretation of the common law doctrine of extinguishment and also considers the interpretation of common law extinguishment rules post-Congoo. Given the divergence of opinion in Congoo, it is possible that these extinguishment principles will again be revisited in future cases concerning extinguishment.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T10:58:38Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-73926
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T10:58:38Z
publishDate 2016
publisher Thomson Reuters
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-739262019-08-05T07:22:22Z “The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo” Stephenson, Margaret Extinguishment has been a key issue in native title cases following the 1992 High Court decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2). In 2015, the High Court in Queensland v Congoo was equally divided in determining whether extinguishment of native title had occurred. Congoo involved an appeal from the Full Federal Court which had held that certain military orders made during the Second World War did not extinguish native title. Accordingly, the Full Federal Court decision appealed from was affirmed. This article reviews the developing doctrine of common law extinguishment of native title law prior to the High Court’s decision in Congoo. The article then critically examines the High Court’s reasoning in Congoo regarding the interpretation of the common law doctrine of extinguishment and also considers the interpretation of common law extinguishment rules post-Congoo. Given the divergence of opinion in Congoo, it is possible that these extinguishment principles will again be revisited in future cases concerning extinguishment. 2016 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/73926 http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2016/10/06/property-law-review-update-vol-6-pt-1/ Thomson Reuters restricted
spellingShingle Stephenson, Margaret
“The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo”
title “The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo”
title_full “The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo”
title_fullStr “The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo”
title_full_unstemmed “The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo”
title_short “The Doctrine of Extinguishment: And then there was Congoo”
title_sort “the doctrine of extinguishment: and then there was congoo”
url http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2016/10/06/property-law-review-update-vol-6-pt-1/
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/73926