 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
(a)
The consultation response
The weight of opinion among respondents to the consultation was significantly against
adopting either of these Proposals and in favour of retaining the Peruvian Guano
principles.
The premise of these two Proposals is that the Peruvian Guano obligations cast their
net too widely, resulting in the parties making excessive disclosure, unnecessarily
adding to the cost and complexity of the proceedings. Many of the practitioners
argued that this does not hold good in Hong Kong where the problem encountered is
said to involve insufficient compliance rather than excessive disclosure. The narrower
obligations were thought likely to facilitate the unscrupulous hiding of material
documents.
Others opposing these Proposals thought that they might increase costs or at least
would not achieve any savings in costs. This was because the narrowing of the
obligation would require more senior (and so more expensive) lawyers to be deployed
in the discovery process and also because more interlocutory applications might result
from discovery which may be arguably insufficient. Another view, advanced by the
Academy of Experts, was that the attempt at limiting disclosure has been "perceived to
have been one of the least successful aspects of the Woolf reforms" since disclosure
"has continued to be relatively detailed" in any event.
Notes
This view was shared, for instance, by the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society, the
HKMLA, the Hon Ms Miriam Lau speaking in Legco, the BCC, the JCGWG, a set of barristers'
chambers and two firms of solicitors.
AE Response, p 17 §6.3 iii) c).
|
 |
|