 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
19.1
provides as follows :-
"(1)
The court may control the evidence by giving directions as to -
(a)
the issues on which it requires evidence;
(b)
the nature of the evidence which it requires to decide those issues; and
(c)
the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court.
(2)
The court may use its power under this rule to exclude evidence that would otherwise
be admissible.
(3)
The court may limit cross-examination."
The Interim Report noted that such a rule was potentially controversial. And so it
proved to be. While recognizing that excesses relating to witness statements and
evidence had to be curbed, respondents to the consultation generally felt that CPR 32.1
goes much too far.
There was strong objection to the court excluding evidence
which is admissible. The general view was that the court ought instead to use its case
management powers and costs sanctions to deter prolixity rather than attempt to
exclude evidence. The few who thought the Proposals acceptable in principle
did so
with important qualifications.
Notes
the LAD, the BCC, the Hon Ms Miriam Lau, speaking in Legco and three firms of solicitors.
Including a set of barristers' chambers (who thought the power should be restricted to clearly defined
categories of cases); the High Court masters (who thought it would be necessary to link the power to
a docket system); the District Court masters and judges (who thought persuasive reasons for
exclusion would have to be given to prevent a sense of grievance) and an individual respondent
(basing his comments on practice in arbitrations).
|
 |
|