Rectification of the Register – Prospective or Retrospective?

In Gold Harp v MacLeod the Court of Appeal considered paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and interpreted this provision to mean that the priority between mistakenly de‐registered interests and registered interests can be altered following rectification. The court can give the de‐registered interest the priority which it ‘would have had’ but for the mistake. In other words, it allows for retrospective rectification. This case note concludes that this is the correct interpretation of paragraph 8 and of the words ‘for the future’. However, it argues that the current range of options available to the court in terms of rectification are producing uncertainty, and that a better approach may be to rely on the priority provisions in sections 28 and 29.     

Smoke,Curtains and Mirrors: The Production of Race Through Time and Title Registration

This article analyses the temporal effects of title registration and their relationship to race. It traces the move away from the retrospection of pre-registry common law conveyancing and toward the dynamic, future-oriented Torrens title registration system. The Torrens system, developed in early colonial Australia, enabled the production of ‘clean’, fresh titles that were independent of their predecessors. Through a process praised by legal commentators for ‘curing’ titles of their pasts, this system produces indefeasible titles behind its distinctive ‘curtain’ and ‘mirror’, which function similarly to magicians’ smoke and mirrors by blocking particular realities from view. In the case of title registries, those realities are particular histories of and relationships with land, which will not be protected by property law and are thus made precarious. Building on interdisciplinary work which theorises time as a social tool, I argue that Torrens title registration produces a temporal order which enables land market coordination by rendering some relationships with land temporary and making others indefeasible. This ordering of relationships with land in turn has consequences for the human subjects who have those relationships, cutting futures short for some and guaranteeing permanence to others. Engaging with Renisa Mawani and other critical race theorists, I argue that the categories produced by Torrens title registration systems materialise as race.     

The Land Registration Act 2002 – the Show on the Road

This article reviews the Land Registration Act 2002, taking advantage of the deeper perspective afforded by the intervening decade, and absorbing subsequent developments – and, in the case of the Act's electronic conveyancing project, non‐developments – that have also come to contribute to the picture. It suggests especially that while the Act's central idea of conclusive, indeed ‘constitutive’, registration can be beneficial, its deployment here has been problematic. In particular, the lapse of electronic conveyancing, and the possibility (resisted by the courts) that conclusive registration can be procured by fraudsters, have diminished the control that parties have over dispositions of their own title, to the detriment of their autonomy; and over‐preoccupation with the central idea has resulted in a failure to think carefully enough about problems to which it was never going to be the answer.     

也论不动产登记错误的法律救济

在我国不动产登记之行政属性的现实基础上,要处理登记错误,不能仅依靠诉讼途径,更要注重更正登记制度的建设。在登记机关违背实质审查义务而导致登记错误,并致人受到财产损害的,要根据具体情形,来确立登记机关、申请人以及其他相关人员的赔偿责任。     

论不动产登记错误的法律救济--以房产登记为重心

加强不动产登记错误的法律救济,是完善我国不动产登记制度的重要内容和目标。我国的不动产登记机关应当统一,并逐步向法院统一管辖过渡。不动产登记行为本质上是民事行为,而非行政行为。对不动产登记应采实质审查制,以强化登记机关的责任。不动产登记错误属民事侵权行为,应通过民事诉讼予以更正和补救。设立赔偿基金,以完善不动产登记错误的赔偿机制。     

抵押预告登记优先受偿效力的解释论

作为预告登记的一个子类型,按照法教义学的逻辑推演,抵押预告登记并不产生优先受偿效力。但该制度的创设目的在于满足商品房预售交易中当事人的担保需求,若抵押预告登记权利人最终无法实现优先受偿权,这一制度将难以发挥其应有的作用,最终沦为具文。当符合已办理建筑物所有权首次登记且预告登记未失效等条件时,抵押预告登记转本登记的实质条件已满足,允许抵押预告登记权利人直接行使优先受偿权并不违反物权法基本原理。虽然《民法典担保制度解释》最终未对强制执行程序中抵押预告登记的效力作出规定,但不妨碍预告登记权利人依照该司法解释第52条第1款的规定行使优先受偿权。在破产程序中,抵押预告登记权利人行使优先受偿权无须以已办理建筑物所有权首次登记为前提,优先受偿的范围也不应限制在人民法院受理破产申请时抵押财产的价值范围内。     

论房屋所有权初始登记应提交材料的范围

房屋所有权初始登记申请应提交材料的范围是严重困扰房地产登记实践的一个问题。繁杂的、"搭便车式"的申请材料提供要求导致房屋所有权初始登记的办理存在诸多障碍。在房屋已合法转让的情形下,这一问题更演化成"小业主办证难"问题,形成了尖锐的社会矛盾。这一难题的解决既涉及对房屋所有权初始登记制度功能的正确认识,也涉及行政法理论中的信赖保护原则在房屋所有权初始登记申请材料提交制度中的正确应用。立法及实践有必要在厘清这些问题的基础上,重新审视我国房屋所有权初始登记应提交材料的范围并妥善解决与此相关的一些法律问题。     

以罪名为讨论平台的反思与纠正

我国刑法学界存在以罪名作为问题讨论平台的现象,但是,由最高司法机关确定的罪名与刑法规定的犯罪构成之间大多并非一一对应的关系,“多罪一名”是我国罪名体系的显著特征,以罪名作为问题讨论平台会带来诸多理论上难以妥善处理的问题。在刑法学研究中,应当严格区分罪名和犯罪这两个概念。刑法学的研究对象是犯罪,讨论刑法问题的基本平台只能是犯罪构成而不是罪名,分析刑法问题的基本单元是“一个犯罪构成”而不是“一个罪名”。罪数中的“罪”是指犯罪构成而不是罪名,具体的事实认识错误是指“同一犯罪构成”内的事实认识错误而非“同一罪名”内的事实认识错误,罪过是犯罪构成的罪过而非罪名的罪过。     

简析《物权法》不动产登记机关的赔偿责任

《物权法》规定,房地产登记机关囚登记错误,给他人造成损害的,登记机构应当承担赔偿责任。但适并没有具体说明申请程序,责任性质和对损害赔偿的责任标准。就这些问题,笔者提出了一些的意见。登记机关如果登记错误,登记的权利状态不符合申请人提交的申请材料中的所请求的状态。审查的准则包括正式审查的立法和实质性审查。对损害赔偿责任的确定应取决于赔偿责任的构成要素,包括的主要内容和行为因素,此赔偿责任的标准应适用过错责任的原则。     

Richall Holdings v Fitzwilliam: Malory v Cheshire Homes and the LRA 2002

Richall Holdings v Fitzwilliam, holds that Malory v Cheshire Homes is binding in relation to the Land Registration Act 2002. Newey J saw himself as bound by that decision because he could find no relevant distinction between the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, and the Land Registration Act 2002. There are however significant differences in the general system of registration that is established. In particular the different roles of section 20 LRA 1925, and section 29 LRA 2002 mean that Malory was not binding and indeed ought not to have been followed. In addition, the treatment of the priorities rules in Richall misinterprets section 29 LRA 2002. Finally, the decision by‐passes the rectification and indemnity provisions of schedules 4 and 8. The decision ought to be overruled.     

信托登记制度比较研究

信托财产对信托业务中产生的对外债务原则上承担独立的有限责任.登记制度则使第三人能知悉上述责任范围,所以将信托财产予以登记成为该责任方式确立的前提条件.登记的范围应限于易于确定的财产.登记的效力以登记对抗要件主义为通行做法.考虑到已登记财产的变动和信托业务的具体特点,某些未经登记的财产具有与已登记财产同样的法律地位.     

Contractual Interpretation,Registered Documents and Third Party Effects

This article considers whether extrinsic material should be available in interpreting registered documents when these may be contractual in nature or relate to contractual agreements. Many registers, for example the current scheme for recording land title, are intended to facilitate the reliance of third parties on their content, an objective that suggests that extrinsic material should be excluded. Such an approach, however, could itself cause unfairness and conflicts with the way that contractual documents are normally interpreted. Exploring this question leads us to consider the contextual approach to contractual interpretation generally and whether it should take account of the contemplated effects of contractual language on third parties. After concluding in the affirmative, we then ask whether this is sufficient as an approach to interpreting contractual documents entered into a register.     

Commons as possessions: The path to protection of the commons in the ECHR system

The ‘commons’ is not mentioned in the texts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P‐1). This essay argues that ‘possessions’ — which does appear in the latter — should be interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to protect commons against national governments' undue interferences. The argument comprises two parts. First, we analyse the polysemic term ‘possessions’ to show how the current understanding of this category is marred by flawed assumptions and by false dichotomies. Then, we propose an ‘ecological’ construction of legal relationships between subjects and objects. We find support in the ECtHR case law on Article 8. We argue this approach should be extended to Article 1 P‐1: once disentangled from possessive individualism and market paradigms, ‘possessions’ encompass the commons and the category offers a solid legal basis toward the justiciability in Strasbourg of privatisations.     

论我国船舶所有权登记的属性

本文针对我国目前对船舶所有权登记的行政管理属性的认识 ,提出船舶所有权登记应包括实体和程序两方面 ,均具有私法性 ,而船舶所有权登记在不同的物权变动立法模式下具有不同的制度配置。论文在分析《海商法》和《船舶登记条例》现存问题的基础上 ,提出了相应修改建议     

Beyond the Real and the Paper Deal: The Quest for Contextual Coherence in Contractual Interpretation

Contract lawyers are often divided between two schools of thought: formalism and contextualism. In the realm of contractual interpretation, this division illuminates various debates surrounding the modern contextual approach. Ultimately, however, the divide between the ‘real and the paper deal’ does not fully reflect the relevant fault lines. The real contest is between rival interpretations attempting to make the most coherent sense of the available text and context surrounding the document. In characterising the true nature of the exercise, I draw upon theories of coherence to articulate a framework of ‘contextual coherence’ that involves concepts of competing narratives, the rational motivations of the parties, and the need for a holistic assessment of the best hypothesis, in accordance with the English courts’ ‘iterative approach’ to interpretation. I demonstrate that this framework enables us to explain and evaluate recent cases such as the UK Supreme Court decision of Arnold v Britton.     

Turnout and Party Registration among Criminal Offenders in the 2008 General Election

This paper estimates the voter registration, turnout, and party registration in the 2008 general election for men with felony convictions in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, and North Carolina. The findings indicate that turnout among felons is much lower than previous research has shown. Ex‐felon turnout in 2008 varied by state, averaging 22.2 percent. People captured and convicted for their first offense after the election voted at similarly low rates. Also contrary to the expectations of previous literature, the ex‐felon population does not seem overwhelmingly Democratic. In North Carolina and Florida, two states for which the data are available, party registration varies by race. Among registered black male ex‐felons, 71.7 percent in North Carolina and 84.2 percent in Florida are registered Democrats. Among whites, however, only 35.3 percent and 36.4 percent of ex‐felons are registered Democrats in North Carolina and Florida, respectively.     

不动产查封公示问题研究

不动产查封是一个涉及司法秩序与交易安全的问题。为防止查封可能造成的司法冲突 ,确保第三人的利益不受意外的伤害 ,需要有健全的法定化的查封公示制度。不动产查封应以登记为准。特殊情况下未以登记办理的查封 ,应迅速补办查封登记 ;未办理查封登记的不得对抗后登记的查封     

The Situation in Libya and the ICC’s Understanding of Complementarity in the Context of UNSC-Referred Cases

The PTCI’s decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and the subsequent AC Judgement are the first expressions of the ICC’s understanding of complementarity in Article 13(b) cases. Admissibility decisions display how the ICC attempts to strike the balance between international justice and states’ right to exercise their territorial criminal jurisdiction. In relation to cases triggered by UNSC referrals, these decisions also mark the delicate moment in which the ICC’s interaction with the politics UNSC is unveiled. In the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi the ICC seems to have taken deferent approach toward the highly authoritative mechanism that triggered the case. Legally speaking, these decisions might appear as a missed opportunity. They fail to provide a conclusive clarification of the parameters of the ‘same case’ test. First, the AC did not subscribe to the offence-specific interpretation of the ‘same conduct’ test embraced previously by PTCI and, in the name of consistency with the Court’s previous case law, reverted to the incident-specific approach adopted in Lubanga. However, the case-by-case approach adopted by the AC undermines the legal certainty that the AC meant to achieve in the definition of the admissibility test. Moreover, the AC has failed to appraise the PTCI’s conclusion that domestic implementation of international crimes is not necessary for the purposes of successfully challenging the admissibility of a case. Finally, in light of the constraints imposed by Article 17(2) on the relevance of due process violations, the PTCI’s decision to reject on the grounds of ‘inability’ as opposed to ‘unwillingness’, which again the AC did not consider, could be seen as evidence of a deferent stance toward the UNSC.     

不动产登记机构错误登记赔偿责任的性质与形态

不动产登记机构对登记申请的审查、登记行为是物权变动行为的组成部分,是不动产物权变动的公示方法和生效要件。它是对当事人的合意与申请登记的基础法律行为起辅助作用的补助行为,尽管其中有一定的行政因素和管理成分,但就物权登记行为的整体构造、主要功用、基本性质而言,应属私法上的行为。登记机构错误登记的赔偿责任因此应定性为民事责任。惟此方能妥善解决在登记机构与登记申请人承担共同责任时的责任形态及诉讼程序问题。登记机构与登记申请人的行为如构成共同侵权,二者应承担连带赔偿责任;如构成混合侵权,登记机构的责任宜确定为补充责任。登记机构追偿权的行使,也因其责任形态的不同而有所差异。     

我国《物权法》登记对抗与登记生效模式并存思考

作为公示的一种重要方式,登记规则在物权法尤其是在不动产物权变动中有着相当重要的分量。我国在物权变动登记规则的问题上实际上采取了登记对抗模式与登记生效模式并存的做法,但其立法理由经不起推敲。登记对抗模式与登记生效模式共存的问题在本质上是物权变动的意思主义和形式主义共存的问题。而登记对抗模式及其背后所反映的意思主义物权变动模式与物债二分的五编制民法体系不相协调。未来立法终将并且必须贯彻登记生效模式以与现有物债二分的民法体系相协调。