 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Of course, the verification requirement is intended to deter the pleading of a false or
speculative case, or a case based on insufficient instructions. To the extent that
expense has to be incurred to formulate a proper pleading, such expense is necessary
and involves no unjustified front-loaded costs. On the other hand, ill-prepared or ill-
conceived pleadings
hamper early settlement and define false parameters for
discovery, witness statements, and so forth, leading to wasteful interlocutory effort
and additional costs. The Working Party accordingly considers it justified to insist on
what are in truth minimum standards through introduction of a verification
requirement.
(iii)
Sufficient time to plead the defence
Some respondents
suggested that more time should be given to the defendant to
plead the defence if he has to deal substantively with the plaintiff's allegations and
verify his case with a statement of truth. If the current 14 day time limit remains, it is
likely only to lead to applications for time extensions, adding to costs. The Working
Party agrees.
Where pre-action protocols operate, it may be fair to assume that the parties will have
been in communication about the claim some time before the writ and statement of
claim were served, giving the defendant an advance opportunity to marshal his
defence. If (as would generally be true in Hong Kong) no pre-action protocol is
applicable, the defendant may have received little advance warning of the claim. The
current time limit of 14 days should be suitably increased (say, to 28 days).
Recommendation 30: The period allowed for defendants to file their defence
should be increased to allow adequate time to plead substantively to a plaintiff's
claim and to verify the defence.
Notes
Including the DOJ and the BSCPI.
|
 |
|