 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
14.1
A docket system
The weight of opinion was much against the proposal that a docket system be adopted
as the means for managing cases across the board.
A notable exception was the Law
Society which favoured using such a system, but with the qualification that significant
resources would have to be devoted to training and improving the case management
capabilities of the Judiciary and its staff.
It was, for instance, suggested that listing
clerks ought to be legally-qualified persons.
Other respondents gave limited support to the use of a docket, such as for complex and
large-scale cases
or for unrepresented litigants placed in a newly-created list.
Others
pointed out that docket systems are de facto in place in most of the specialist
lists.
As indicated in the preceding Section, the Working Party recommends adoption of
discussed. The Working Party therefore does not recommend adoption of a docket
system for application across the board.
It is however recognized that the specialist lists operate very much along docket lines,
often with a single judge given charge of all cases on the list and with all contested
interlocutory applications as well as the trial being dealt with by the same judge. The
continuation of this docket-type system is supported by the Working Party in relation
to specialist lists, as expanded upon below.
Notes
Shared by the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the DOJ, the APAA, several judges, masters, court
administrators and a firm of solicitors.
The BCC was also on balance in favour of a docket system.
The DOJ.
The judges and masters of the District Court, pointing to an unofficial list and docket of this nature
currently being operated in that court.
The HKMLA.
|
 |
|