 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Those favouring the Proposals
tended to do so subject to the rider that the court
should exercise flexible case management powers to fit the discovery regime to the
needs of any particular case (as per Proposal 29). Indeed, active case management in
respect of discovery was also generally subscribed to by those who favour keeping to
the Peruvian Guano principles. Such respondents saw case management as the
preferable way of tempering possible Peruvian Guano excesses, for instance, with the
court directing, where appropriate, that discovery should take place in stages or in
relation to particular issues first; or that it should be limited to particular classes of
documents; or that documents need not be listed individually but by bundle or by file
in certain categories, and so forth.
Accordingly, the judicious control of discovery using case management powers is a
concept which bridges, to a large extent, the gap between those in favour and those
Notes
Including the DOJ, the APAA, the HKFLA, the High Court and District Court masters, a firm of
solicitors, and an individual respondent.
|
 |
|