Abstract

In 2002, England adopted the Land Registration Act.  This article analyses, first, the evolution of the English legal regime for a title registration system which led to the passage of the Act.  It then evaluates the policy goal and major content of the Land Registration Act.  Finally, the author argues that China can learn many lessons from the Act.  Firstly, the technical quality of legislation is crucial to the successful implementation of a title registration system. Secondly, such successful implementation is dependent on the prevailing political, economic and social conditions. Thirdly, collaboration between government departments responsible for policy formulation and implementation of title registration is also crucial. With regard to electronic conveyancing, China should appreciate that although it strives to achieve a system of ‘title by registration’ from the existing system of ‘registration of title, it is doubtful whether the English system of electronic conveyancing is compatible with the current stage of Chinese development. However, on the issue of indemnity, China can also learn from the Act by stipulating in its own indemnity provision the detailed circumstances under which indemnity would be payable: for example, a formula for calculating the amount of indemnity; a failure or reduction of claim for indemnity in the event of fraud or lack of care, and the recovery of compensation by the registrar from person(s) who cause or significantly contribute to loss through fraud. Finally, China can improve the drafting of its land registration legislation in such a way that the overall powers of these land registrations officers, as well as the circumstances under which they can ‘alter’ the land registers, are defined more clearly.    


I. Introduction

A comprehensive system for title registration was first developed in civil law countries.  Among common law countries, England and Australia were the two oldest countries to adopt and develop such a title registration system, while in the United States, such a system failed to flourish. This article attempts to answer three research questions.  First, how did the English legal system for the title registration mechanism evolve, which ultimately resulted in the adoption of the Land Registration Act of 2002 (“the Act”). . .  Second, what were the major policy objectives as well as the substantive contents of the Act. . .  Finally, what lessons can the Chinese legal system learn from the English experience for an effective implementation of its own future title registration system. . .

In order to address these questions, this article is divided into two parts: The first part analyses the evolution of the English legal system for a title registration system that ultimately led to the passage of the Act.  The second part evaluates the major contents and policy objectives of the Act. Throughout Parts One and Two, certain lessons that China can learn from the English registration system are examined.