 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Those in favour of Proposal 75 and so of proceeding by way of amendment to the
RHC included the Bar Association and the Law Society.
A variety of reasons were
given, including the following :-
(a)
The Bar Association stressed the relative ease of mastering amendments over
having to learn a whole new code :-
"...... given the long history of the existing rules, it is relatively easier for lawyers and judges
to adapt to changes by familiarising themselves with specific amendments as opposed to a
wholly new code."
(b)
The Law Society thought a new code unnecessary :-
"...... the reforms can and should be implemented (to the same degree in substance) by
amending and supplementing the existing rules and where necessary re-interpreting existing
rules."
(c)
One set of barristers' chambers argued in favour of incremental change :-
"We believe that a ‘step-by-step' approach, rather than a ‘root and branch' change, is more
appropriate for Hong Kong. We consider that the existing civil system, which has evolved
over 150 years, if it is properly used and amended where necessary, represents a tested
framework for the efficient and effective administration of civil justice. It provides
reasonable certainty as to the likely result which is important."
(d)
One judge stressed the need for caution as a reason for favouring Proposal 75 :-
"The amendment route, whilst requiring a greater investment initially in terms of effort, is
considerably less fraught with risks and therefore the less likely to disappoint in the long
run."
(e)
A solicitors' firm questioned the benefits of opting for an entirely new
procedural code :-
"It is far too early to categorically state that there should be wholesale civil procedure reform
based on the experience of England. Further, the little credible evidence that exists to date
suggests that whilst reform may have reduced (in part) the complexity of civil litigation (in
fast track cases in England), there has not generally been any significant saving of costs or
reduction in delay. On that basis, thus far, we are not convinced that it is ‘necessary' to have
wholesale civil procedure reform in Hong Kong."
(f)
The HKMLA favoured a cautious, phased approach, monitoring the impact of
reforms before considering further steps. They also pointed to the increasing
complexity of the CPR as a reason to avoid their adoption.
Notes
Others in favour of Proposal 75 included several other High Court judges, the High Court masters, a
set of barristers' chambers, a firm of solicitors, the HKMLA and a member of the English Bar.
|
 |
|