 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
(a)
Procedural autonomy should be retained
There was near-universal support for continuing the present system of conferring a
high degree of procedural autonomy on judges in charge of specialist lists. The
Working Party shares this sentiment.
The practice directions which already exist illustrate how special procedures need to
be developed, for particular types of proceedings. To take the Admiralty Jurisdiction
as an example, PD 1.1 makes provision for a preliminary hearing to be held before
certain interlocutory applications. This would not make sense in the general run of
cases. However, in Admiralty, where the key (and hard-fought) battles often occur at
the very start of the proceedings
– where Hong Kong jurisdiction, whether in
personam or in rem, is challenged or an arrest of a vessel is sought to be set aside, etc
– such a hearing is often highly desirable.
While the RHC, as provided for by O 1 r 2, should generally apply to all proceedings,
including those in the specialist lists, the power to dis-apply certain rules and to add or
subtract procedural requirements with a view to meeting the peculiar needs of
specialist list cases should be maintained. Such procedural differences should be
formulated as practice directions to provide a published procedural guide to users and
the general public. Where practice directions have proliferated, these should be
consolidated (as has occurred in the Personal Injury List with publication of PD 18.1).
Recommendation 64: The procedural autonomy currently conferred on judges
in charge of specialist lists should be maintained and any special practices
adopted should be published as practice directions.
|
 |
|