LAW201A Business Law: Analyzing Courts, Tribunals, and the Mabo Case

This Business Law assignment provides a detailed analysis of the differences and similarities between courts and non-judicial tribunals, using the New South Wales District Court and the New South Wales Administrative Appeals Tribunal as examples. It explores the rights to appeal and the use of precedent in both systems. Furthermore, the assignment delves into the significance of the Mabo case in Australian legal history, specifically how the High Court's decision overturned the doctrine of terra nullius and recognized Native Title rights. The paper discusses the challenges faced by the High Court when overruling previous decisions and emphasizes the importance of understanding English legal history to grasp the full impact of the Mabo decision. It also highlights how the Mabo case led to the enactment of the Native Title Act, 1993, which acknowledges the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in certain parts of Australia.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Introduction:
Question 1:
a) An example of court is New South Wales District Court and that of a non- judicial
tribunal is New South Wales Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Both of them are of the same
jurisdiction.
b) The New South Wales Administrative Appeals Tribunal is a non judicial tribunal.
Thus the right to appeal is available to the parties if they are not satisfied by the decision made
by it on points of law. The parties may make an application of appeal within 21 days from the
date of the decision to the court of appeal. However such decision must include any question of
law. Decisions cannot be appealed unless it involves any question of law. The tribunal is also
bound by the decision of its superior court. It follows the principles of precedent.
On the other hand, when a party is aggrieved as well deprived by the decision of the New
South Wales District court, it can also make an appeal to that decision in the superior court. It is
not necessary that such decision must include a question of law. Again, this court is bound by the
doctrine of precedence, that is, it is bound to follow the decision of its superior courts. It may
overrule or may not follow the decision of courts of same hierarchy.
Thus both of them are linked together by the rights to appeal and the doctrine of
precedent (Davies & Neal ,2016).
c) The differences between a court and administrative tribunal are as follows: firstly, the
administrative tribunals mainly deal with a particular type of disputes only like cases having
disputes related to administration. While courts deal with and resolve cases of all types.

2
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Secondly, tribunals are set up to be less formal. The process of adjudication involved here is
informal, less expensive and very fast as compared to courts. Thirdly, the persons who decide in
the tribunals are called adjudicators and they have special knowledge about the matter they
decide. Cases in the courts are judged by persons called judges and they have overall knowledge
about law, not any particular expertise about the matter they are judging. Fourthly, the course are
established to resolve disputes in a traditional way, whereas the tribunals are established to
provide alternative method to resolve disputes to lessen the burden of cases on courts. Fifthly,
the courts deal with all type of offences and disputes whereas the tribunals mainly deal with civil
cases and petty offences. Sixthly, the tribunals use Alternate Dispute Resolution method of
arbitration and mediation to adjudicate the cases while the courts follow the traditional age old
system of adjudication (Weinberg, 2018). Seventhly, the courts are very old institution of every
country as compared to the tribunals that are comparatively new in the judicial system.
The similarities between a court and tribunal are both them hear and resolved disputes of
the common people.
Question 2:
1) In Australia, the High Court is bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the
House of Lords. However, it is not bound by the decision given by other High Courts. A court
must always supply reasons for its decisions. But most of the courts follow their own decisions.
In common law legal system, courts generally follow the precedents. Precedents are set of rules
or decisions given by a court that are followed by other courts or same courts in similar
subsequent cases. The principle which binds the judges to precedents is known as stare decisis.
In the case of Perre v Apand, Justice McHugh of the high court of Australia stated that the courts
may follow the precedents in subsequent cases as an example.

3
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
In the case of Mabo v Queensland (1992), the High Court overruled the decision of
Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd given by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. In this case
the court held that the doctrine of terra nullius is not applicable to cases where there were
inhabitants already. It basically made the rule of land law named as terra nullius meaning land
belonging to no one void. The Mabo decision led the Australian Government to legislate the new
Native Title Act, 1993. This act created a structure that recognizes Aboriginal and people of
Torres Strait Islander have rights and interests in certain parts of Australia due to their traditional
laws, culture and customs.
The High court while overruling any previous decision, always faces different challenges.
the courts considers the facts and matters of the case minutely before making any judgment.
Such facts and rules will vary from case to case and the court will use its discretionary power to
analyze whether any overruling is required or not.
2) The main idea behind the doctrine of precedent is that the judge while deciding any
case must give proper respect to the previous judicial decisions. In general, the lower courts are
bound by the decisions of the higher courts. If the lower courts do not follow the judgments giver
by superior courts, their decision will be overturned on appeal. Though the decision of superior
courts does not become law of the land, it is binding on all lower courts. The overruling
precedent given by same court or by a superior court nullifies the previous decision.
3) The decision in the Mabo case repealed the existence of the doctrine of terra nullius in
Australia (Powell, McMahon & Jones, 2017). It is a Latin expression meaning “land of nobody”.
The English government used this doctrine to set a claim in Australia and to establish a penal
colony where English law applied. It is important and necessary to know the English legal

4
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
history so as to understand the decision in Mabo case because the doctrine ignored the rights and
customary laws of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The decision recognized the rights and
claims of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have the rights to the land of
Australia, the right that existed before British reached Australia and occupied it.

5
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
References:
Davies, C., & Neal, L. (2016). Phillips v the Queen: A Doctrine of Precedent Case. James Cook
UL Rev., 22, 119.
Frank Perre & Ors v Apand Pty Ltd (1999)
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR617
Milirrpum v Nabalco (1971) 17 FLR 141
Powell, G., McMahon, S., & Jones, D. (2017). Aboriginal Voices and Inclusivity in Australian
Land Use Country Planning. KnE Engineering, 2(2), 30-36.
The Native Title Act, 1993
Weinberg, J. (2018). Keeping Up with Charge: No Alternative to Teaching ADR in Clinic. An
Australian Perspective. Int'l J. Clinical Legal Educ., 25, 35.