 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
17.8
The consultation response
With a few exceptions,
the respondents to the consultation supported using the
summary assessment of costs as a means of managing interlocutory applications.
However, this was subject to some important qualifications, the most frequently
voiced being the danger of inconsistency among assessments and of arbitrary and
excessive reductions.
There was also concern from certain solicitors' firms that it would require more
judges, that the judges would need to be trained, that producing a costs statement in
advance might cause problems (so that such statements should only have to be handed
up at the hearing)
and that the summary assessment process should not be tied to
benchmark costs.
Notes
Including a judge who thought such assessments would be an unwelcome burden.
They included the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society, two sets of barristers' chambers,
one firm of solicitors, the High Court masters, the District Court judges and masters, two individual
respondents and the BCC.
Including the Bar Association, the BSCPI, one set of barristers' chambers, two firms of solicitors, the
DOJ and the APIL.
The HKMLA.
The High Court masters and masters and judges of the District Court.
|
 |
|