7715LAW—PROPERTY LAW 2

CASE ANALYSIS & SYNTHESIS

TRIMESTER 2, 2021

OVERVIEW

Feature Detail
Due date Monday 23 August 2021 [week 5]
Weighting 20 per cent of overall marks in this course.
Length Maximum 2000 words
Learning 1. appraise the complex relationship between state regulation, Torrens
Outcomes bureaucracy and private property rights.
assessed 2. explain the Torrens system of land law and its doctrines and
procedures.

5. independently learn more about land law and solve problems related
to land law.

AIMS OF THIS ASSESSMENT

This assessment task provides you the opportunity to analyse critically, reflect on and synthesise
complex concepts found in the leading judgment of Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1
(‘Mabo Case’). It allows you to synthesise concepts that you have already encountered in
Foundations of Law and Property 1 in the context of private land titles and provides a foundation
for further and deeper theoretical analysis in Theories of Law.

This task relates directly to work that you will do in topics set in weeks 1 and 3, and the workshop
in week 4. Importantly, it illustrates the continuity between what you have learned in Property 1 and
what you will learn in Property 2.

ASSESSMENT TASK

Read the judgment of Brennan J in the Mabo Case, and of Barwick CJ in Breskvar v Wall. Through
a close analysis of these two judgments, compare and contrast the judgments to synthesise the
cases’ conceptualisation of the underlying source of title and how they together form the basis for
private land titles in Australia. In your answer, you must demonstrate your understanding of what
the decisions together reveal about the relationship between native title and Torrens title.

Case note: In presenting your work, you will need to include a brief case note for each decision: an
overview of the issues at stake and what the court found. However, your analysis must focus on
these two judgments so in your case notes, make sure that you spell out the approach taken in
each judgment.

Answer the question: The key to this task will be having a good understanding of the two
judgments in terms of the central premise of the question—the source of title. The question asks
you to ‘compare and contrast’. This gives a clue to how you might usefully structure your response.
If you are unsure how to go about tackling a compare/contrast topic, there are a lot of useful tips
online.

Citation: You are not expected to undertake additional research for this task. However, you may
find it useful to refer to other materials to aid your understanding or to provide you with a broader
perspective. Remember to footnote any authority you rely on, in accordance with the AGLC4.
1
Structure: You may set out your work however you wish. Structure your writing logically so that
ideas flow from sentence to sentence, and paragraph to paragraph. It is not required, but generally
headings are helpful in structuring your work, and assist the reader to follow your argument.
Remember that heading styles should adhere to the AGLC4.

Writing: Your written expression is important. Take care with your grammar, punctuation and
spelling.

Feedback and Marking: Your work will be marked according to the rubric (Table 1 below) and
marks will be published in the mark book in Learning@Griffith. It is worthwhile taking the time to
note the feedback—both specific to your work, as well as general feedback offered to the course
as a whole.

2
 TABLE 1: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
Criteria
Identification of legal issues
and doctrine in each case
4 marks
Identification of legal issues
and legal rules in each of the
relevant judgments
6 marks
Comparison/contrast
between judgments to
present synthesis of the
underlying doctrine
concerning the source of title
10 marks
Does not meet requirements
The analysis does not accurately
identify:
 the legal issues involved in each
case
 what the court found in each
case
0-1.5 marks
The analysis does not accurately
identify the approach taken by the
judge in each of the two relevant
judgments
0-2.5 marks
Little or no evidence of comparison
of the sources of title in the relevant
judgments.
Analysis does not identify or does
not address the question of a
relationship between Torrens title
and native title according to the
judgments.
0-4.5 marks
Meets requirements
Identifies most or all of the relevant
legal issues in each case as part of
the outline of the case
Some discussion of the meaning of
legal doctrine involving the source of
title in terms of the case overall
2-3 marks
Identifies most of the relevant legal
issues in each of the two relevant
judgments; may include some issues
that are not relevant to the analysis of
the source of title
Some discussion of the import of the
two relevant judgments in terms of
their respective contributions to the
law concerning the source of title in
each case
3-4 marks
Some analysis of the two judgments.
Identifies similarities and differences
between sources of native title and
Torrens title without basic synthesis to
identify how each decision contributes
to doctrine concerning source of title
Predominantly answers the question
though there may be some gaps.
5-7.5 marks
Exceeds requirements
Distinguishes between legal issues
involved in the case to identify those
issues relevant to the question of the
source of title
Clearly identifies the meaning of legal
doctrine involving the source of title in
terms of the case overall
3.5-4 marks
Identifies all relevant legal issues in each
of the two relevant judgments,
distinguishing those legal issues that do
not pertain to the analysis of the source of
title
Clear discussion of the import of the two
relevant judgments in terms of their
respective contributions to the law
concerning the source of title in each case
4.5-6 marks
Sophisticated analysis of the two
judgments; coherently explains the
similarities and differences between
sources of native title and Torrens title,
together with coherent synthesis of
doctrine concerning source of title as
derived from the two judgments;
comprehensively answers the question.
8-10 marks