 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
As to company cases, a Companies List is already operated by the Bankruptcy and
Winding-up Judge, operating under the Winding-up and Bankruptcy Rules
respectively, with practice directions
already in place. The Judge also commonly
deals with shareholder disputes brought under s 168A of the Companies Ordinance.
The Working Party accordingly considers that this is an area sufficiently well served
by specialised treatment.
A suggestion was also made by the Registrar of Companies that a Companies Tribunal
should be set up to facilitate quick and simple treatment of smaller and more
straightforward minority shareholder claims and claims by unrepresented litigants, as
well as matters such as share valuations, section 168A share purchase orders, capital
restructuring and the like. This may have merit, but was not a suggestion canvassed in
the Interim Report and so did not attract other comment. It would not be appropriate
to take this further in this Final Report.
The question whether a specialist list ought to be set up for proceedings involving
unrepresented litigants had mixed responses.
The Working Party is not in favour of
a specialist list for unrepresented litigants. Such litigants are not a homogenous group
and may crop up at any point in the entire spectrum of cases dealt with by the courts.
The idea that they should all be referred to a particular specialist list, whatever the
subject-matter of the case may be, does not commend itself. It would be preferable to
have the case dealt with either as a general High Court Action or in any specialist list
in which it may fall by virtue of its subject-matter, with the court in each instance
being conscious of the need for case management which is sensitive to the difficulties
faced by such litigants (and their represented opponents).
Notes
The Law Society was in favour, as were the judges and masters of the District Court who pointed out
that there was a de facto specialist list and docket system operated in that court for litigants in
person. However, the JCGWG, who have a great deal of contact with unrepresented litigants, were
not in favour. Nor were some solicitors' firms.
|
 |
|