In 1992, the High Court of Australia made a decision about native title rights in Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. In 1993, the Commonwealth Parliament passed a new law about native title called the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). If there is an inconsistency between the law passed by parliament and the decision of the High Court of Australia, which would prevail when solving a legal problem?Question 6Answera.Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2), because the judiciary is the sovereign law-maker in Australia.b.The Native Title Act, because it is a newer law.c.Mabo v State of Queensland (No 2), because the case was decided before parliament passed the Native Title Act. Under the doctrine of precedent, old cases are still good precedent.d.The Native Title Act, because parliament is the sovereign law-maker in Australia.

Outline the two jurisdictions of the High Court of Australia.

Which courts deal with matters relating to the constitution in Australia?1 pointSupreme CourtConstitutional CourtHigh Cou

Briefly outline the facts of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Qarase vBainimarama (2009) FJCA 9 (Fiji) and the legal significance of that decision

how do these impact lack of legal representation for indigenous individuals

In 1897, the decision in Salomon v Salomon & Co was handed down in England. This case established a legal principle that still exists today. However, this legal principle is under pressure.Required:Detail the parties, the background of the case, and the decision.Identify and explain the legal principleDiscuss whether the legal principle is still applicable and relevant. (Your discussion should include the development, since 1897, in both common law and statute law.)