 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The Working Party does not recommend a docket system generally for managing
cases in Hong Kong. However, it supports the continued use of what is effectively a
docket system in relation to certain specialist list procedures or pursuant to
applications made under PD 5.7 in respect of cases thought appropriate for such
treatment.
Under O 72 of the RHC, the Chief Justice has designated four specialist lists, namely,
the Commercial; Personal Injury; Construction and Arbitration; and Constitutional and
Administrative Law Lists. The rules give the judges in question control of the
proceedings in their list and, subject to any directions given, the relevant judge hears
all chambers applications himself. This means that the specialist list judge has a high
degree of procedural autonomy enabling him (often with the assistance of a
consultative group of court users) to develop procedures designed for the peculiar
needs of cases on the list. Particular provisions of the RHC may be excluded or varied
by practice direction applicable to the specialist list or by specific order in relation to a
particular case.
There was general support from consultees and in the Working Party for this high
level of procedural autonomy to continue, with freedom to adopt pre-action protocols
if thought desirable. It is also recommended that consideration be given to the
establishment of a new specialist list to deal with intellectual property and information
technology cases, ie, an "IP/IT" list, after consultation with the legal profession and
other interested parties.
Section 27 of the HCO, which deals with vexatious litigants, lays down a cumbersome
procedure and lacks the flexibility needed to meet practical problems. The provision
on which it is based has since been updated and enhanced in England and Wales.
|
 |
|