 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
29.2
The consultation response
The proposals on ADR attracted a very lively response. There was generally much
opposition to Proposal 63
and Proposal 65.
The response to Proposal 66
was
mixed.
Proposal 68
was largely uncontroversial and received general support.
There was a mixed reception for Proposal 64
and Proposal 67.
Notes
Including from the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society, the LAD, HKM Centre, the
HKFLA, the SCLHK, the WB/LAD, the HA, the JCGWG, the HKIA, the Registrar of Companies,
two sets of barristers' chambers, two firms of solicitors and two individual respondents. The
Proposal was supported by the APAA, the HKMC, the HKFEMC, the HKIArb and the AE (as a pre-
requisite to a hearing). The HKCA favoured mandatory mediation for all cases in the Construction
and Arbitration List.
Opponents and supporters were much the same as those responding to Proposal 63.
Opponents included the LAD, the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society, the JCGWG and
one set of barristers' chambers. It received support from the APAA, the HKMC, the HKM Centre,
the HKFLA, the HKIArb, the HKIA, one firm of solicitors and an individual respondent.
Supporters included the Law Society, the APAA, the HKMC, the HKFLA, the SCLHK, the HKIArb,
the HKIA, the AE, the Registrar of Companies and three individual respondents. Opponents
included the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the HKM Centre, the WB/LAD, one set of barristers'
chambers and one firm of solicitors.
Supporters, some of whom saw difficulties in the proposal, included the Law Society, the APAA, the
HKMC, the WB/LAD, the HKFEMC, the HKIArb, the AE, one firm of solicitors and two individual
respondents. The SCLHK's views were divided. Those against included the Bar Association, the
BSCPI, the HKM Centre, the HKFLA, the JCGWG, the LAD, one set of barristers' chambers and
one firm of solicitors.
|
 |
|