 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
15.1
Multi-party litigation
This Proposal was generally supported.
The Consumer Council and the BSCPI felt
there was a pressing need for such a scheme. The former also suggested that the
Consumer Council should be given standing to sue in public-interest cases.
Some
respondents pointed to particular schemes as possible models, including those found in
Victoria and in the Federal Courts of Australia.
One judge
suggested that, rather
than wait, the Group Litigation Order scheme in place in England and Wales
should
be adopted.
The Working Party recommends that a system for enabling and managing multi-party
litigation should in principle be introduced. It remains of the view that a specific
study should be made of systems operating in other jurisdictions with a view to
identifying a model suitable to the needs of Hong Kong. While the GLO scheme in
England and Wales has been put into operation, the rules and the practice direction do
not address a number of key questions, with the scheme relying to a very high degree
on the discretion of the judge in the individual case. While that is a model which
deserves close study, it would be premature to opt for that approach. It may be
appropriate for the Chief Justice or the Secretary for Justice to refer the topic of multi-
party proceedings to the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong.
Recommendation 70: In principle, a scheme for multi-party litigation should
be adopted. Schemes implemented in comparable jurisdictions should be
studied by a working group with a view to recommending a suitable model for
Hong Kong.
Notes
Among those in favour were the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society, the Consumer
Council, the DOJ, HKRRLS, a firm of solicitors and the BCC.
A similar suggestion was made by the Hon Ms Audrey Eu SC, speaking in Legco.
Including a firm of solicitors
Mr Justice Litton NPJ.
|
 |
|