 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
20.1
The consultation response
The response was mixed. The proposal was supported by a number of respondents,
but the weight of opinion was against such a change. Thus, the Bar Association was
not in favour of the court having power to "exclude altogether relevant and admissible
expert evidence" and favoured retaining the existing regime for regulating expert
evidence. This view was shared by the Law Society, the LAD, the DOJ, the HKMLA,
the BCC, the SCLHK and a firm of solicitors, several of them commenting that use of
costs sanctions would suffice. In a valuable submission from the Academy of Experts,
a professional association of expert witnesses based in London but with Hong Kong
members and a Hong Kong Committee, commented that in England :-
"There is a perception that the power to refuse permission for expert evidence was over-used
in its first year of introduction in England. Indeed many believe that it is still being used
inappropriately."
Notes
Those in favour included the APAA, the High Court masters, the HKIS, two firms of solicitors and a
set of barristers' chambers.
Another firm of solicitors thought it might only suit smaller cases and
the BSCPI thought it would be acceptable only if the courts were not over-zealous in excluding the
evidence.
|
 |
|