Because land can be owned by multiple people at the same time without any hierarchy of interests.

Because possession and ownership are legally indistinguishable concepts.

Because different legal relationships can co-exist to allocate distinct rights to different parties over the same land.

Because property rights are inherently temporary and unstable.

A contractual licence to occupy land enforceable only against Naomi

An equitable interest contingent upon registration of the agreement

A personal right of occupation dependent on Naomi’s continued ownership

A leasehold estate conferring a present proprietary right to exclusive possession.

Joe holds an equitable interest capable of binding third parties.

Joe holds a vested remainder subject to divestment.

Joe holds no proprietary interest, only a revocable expectancy.

“I grant Blackacre to B until further notice.”

“I grant Blackacre to B absolutely, subject to my death.”

“I grant Blackacre to B for the remainder of B’s natural life.”

“I grant Blackacre to B for the duration of C’s lifetime.”

Because the lease automatically extinguished all prior agreements made by the owner.

Because the agreement did not confer exclusive possession of any part of the land.

Because advertising rights can never exist in relation to land.

Because the arrangement created only a contractual right, not a proprietary interest binding third parties.

Equity will always prefer economic efficiency.

An injunction is unavailable where value increases.

Improvements can never amount to waste.

The remainderman may seek an injunction despite the improvements.

Deeds were incapable of evidencing proprietary ownership.

The purchaser’s title depended on the validity of every prior conveyance in the chain.

Crown grants were frequently incomplete or defective.

Registration of deeds was discretionary rather than mandatory.

Because the purchaser was required to verify an unbroken chain of title back to the Crown.

Because only Crown-issued instruments were legally effective.

Because title depended on possession rather than documentation.

Because deeds only operated as contracts rather than conveyances.

It confirmed that native title rights operate independently of property law concepts.

It supported the conclusion that property rights must always be exclusive to be legally recognised.

It allowed the Court to deny that fauna could ever be owned by the Crown.

It enabled the Court to distinguish between regulatory power and full proprietary control.

A contractual expectation unenforceable until possession arises.

A remainder interest giving a present right to future possession.

A reversionary interest retained by the grantor.

A contingent interest dependent on Person B predeceasing Person C