 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
This concern led a number of respondents to stress that pre-action protocols and the
sanctions for non-compliance should not be introduced for all cases across the board.
Some thought that they should not be used in ordinary, simple cases but should be
reserved for complex cases.
Others supported the introduction of protocols for cases
on certain specialist lists. A number pointed to the existence and apparent success of
the practice direction PD18.1 in Hong Kong, which has effectively introduced a pre-
action protocol for personal injury cases, as showing that such protocols were suitable
for the Personal Injury list.
There were also calls for the establishment of pre-action
protocols for construction and engineering cases,
clinical negligence cases
and
intellectual property cases.
Notes
Including the DOJ and an individual respondent.
The Bar Association, the Law Society, the LAD, the HKFI (putting forward the view of Allianz
Insurance), the APIL, the High Court masters and a firm of solicitors. The BSCPI was more
guarded, suggesting that protocols may do well in smaller claims with minor injuries, but questioning
the benefits otherwise.
By the Law Society, the SCLHK, the HKFEMC and one firm of solicitors.
By the HA and the LAD.
By the APAA and the HKRRLS.
|
 |
|