 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
It has concluded that in local circumstances :-
(a)
adopting a series of reforms by amendment to our existing rules would be
preferable and would be less disruptive and less demanding than adopting an
entirely new code;
(b)
some of the most beneficial reforms (eg, Part 36 reforms and closer control over
interlocutory applications) can readily be adopted; and,
(c)
the Proposal 75 approach would allow any particular reforms that prove
unsuccessful to be more readily reversed.
In deciding which reforms to recommend in the light of the responses received in the
consultation process, 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; always subject to the
fundamental requirements of procedural and substantive justice.
Procedures become more cost-effective where they help to ensure that each item of
costs incurred achieves more towards bringing the parties closer to a resolution of their
dispute, whether by reaching settlement or arriving at a final adjudication.
To that end, the Working Party has sought, for example, to find ways of simplifying
procedures, lessening the number of procedural steps needed, getting more done at any
one hearing, dealing with more applications on paper, penalising unnecessary
applications, discouraging over-elaboration in pleadings, witness statements and oral
evidence, restricting interlocutory appeals, and so forth.
These aims also involve countering the excesses of the adversarial system, fostering
greater openness between the parties, finding ways of encouraging earlier settlement
and giving proper consideration to alternative modes of dispute resolution.
The reforms recommended call for the court's greater involvement in case managing
litigation and monitoring its progress, setting timetables tailored to the needs of
particular cases.
|
 |
|