 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
5.3
The consultation response
Most respondents accepted that the aims of pre-action protocols are laudable and that
substantial benefits could flow from the observance of well-designed pre-action
protocols developed after due consultation. However, many of them expressed
significant reservations.
The most serious concern, based on the experience of the pre-action protocols in
England and Wales, was that they would result in the "front-loading" of costs, that is,
in requiring the parties to incur costs even before commencement of the proceedings
and therefore at a much earlier stage of the dispute than otherwise.
Where the case
thereafter goes by default or rapidly settles, this may mean that costs have been
unnecessarily incurred and that litigation has been made more expensive.
Notes
Respondents broadly in favour of the protocols, but often subject to qualification, included the Bar
Association, the Law Society, the High Court masters, the District Court judges and masters, the
LAD, the DOJ, the HA, the SCLHK, the HKFI (putting forward the view of Allianz Insurance), the
HKFEMC, the APIL, the HKFLA, the HKCS, the APAA, the Hon Ms Audrey Eu SC, the JCGWG,
the BCC, the HKRRLS, one set of barristers' chambers, three firms of solicitors and one individual
respondent.
Including the Bar Association, the Law Society, the DOJ, the SCLHK, the Hon Ms Audrey Eu SC,
the BCC, two firms of solicitors and one individual respondent.
|
 |
|