 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The Working Party is therefore in favour of Proposal 75 for the implementation of
reforms by amendment, rather than the wholesale adoption of the CPR. It will be on
this footing that discussion of the various proposed reforms in the following pages
proceeds. Additions to and subtractions from the RHC as they presently exist would
have to be made if the recommendations made below are accepted. However, the
framework of the RHC and most of the corpus of the rules would remain in place.
An additional consideration also supporting the amendment approach is of importance.
Where one retains the well-established basic structure of the rules, adding to or
subtracting from it by amendment, any changes which unexpectedly turn out to be
counter-productive are likely to be more easily undone by falling back on the pre-
existing scheme than changes which form part of an entirely new code. Where an
entirely new code is adopted, the pre-existing structure will have been removed or
radically altered, making it difficult to unscramble a reform that proves to have been a
mistake. This would especially be so if the provisions in question are closely related
to fundamentally new concepts or mechanisms, such as those involving pre-action
protocols or the overriding objective or proportionality. Easier reversibility is
valuable where introduction of a reform is thought to be desirable but to require a
degree of caution.
Recommendation 1: The proposed reforms recommended for adoption in this
Final Report should be implemented by way of amendment to the RHC rather
than by adopting an entirely new procedural code along the lines of the CPR.
In deciding which reforms to recommend, the Working Party has been guided by the
objectives of improving the cost-effectiveness of our system of civil procedure,
reducing its complexity and lessening the delays encountered in litigation, in the light
of the responses received in the consultation process; always subject to the
fundamental requirements of procedural and substantive justice.
|
 |
|