This native title case provided the acknowledgement of prior Aboriginal occupation that had been sought by indigenous Australians for so long. .
An area of concern with native title was the issue of compensation. Under common law Non-Aboriginal Australians have had the right to compensation for the acquisition of their land by the crown. In the past such compensation has never been offered to indigenous Australians. It was the decision of the Court in the Mabo case that no Aborigines will be entitled to compensation for any land acquisitions by the crown before 1975. That only some Aboriginal native title holders may be entitled to compensation for such acquisitions of some of their lands since 1975, the year the Racial Discrimination Act was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament. .
The Mabo case had vital ramifications for the way in which future land rights cases would be dealt with and their legal foundations. When Justice Brennan handed down the Mabo decision this proved that there were common law errors in regards to native title. It also set the framework whereby the claims of indigenous people would have to use the courts to further their claims. .
.
The Wik case (1993) brought about by the Wik people was concerned with the right of pastoral leases over native title. In the Federal Court of Australia the Wik people took action against the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth government claiming native title of land and water in northern Queensland. The Court found that Queensland pastoral leases had been created to meet the needs of the pastoral industry. Pastoral leasehold interests were to be ratified by examining relevant legal documentation and the lease itself. At the same time a lease did not necessarily give the leaseholder exclusive land rights nor did it negate native title. Therefore, native title could exist with the rights of the leaseholder. However, where there is a conflict the rights of the pastoralists prevail over any rights of the native title holders.