 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
19.2
The Working Party's view
The Working Party agrees with the predominant view that the high level of judicial
proactivity required to operate a rule along the lines of CPR 32.1 does not appear
necessary or desirable in the circumstances of Hong Kong. Given the reforms
proposed, including those relating to verified pleadings, a questionnaire at the stage of
the summons for directions, tighter case management and a pre-trial review, the issues
between the parties and the relevance or otherwise of evidence ought generally to be
clear. In such a context, the existing powers of the court are likely to be sufficient,
particularly if more effectively exercised, to keep out irrelevant evidence and to
discourage prolixity.
As discussed in greater detail in connection with Proposal 41 below, the court should
exercise general overall control against undue prolixity at the trial by giving directions
setting broad time-limits for each segment of the trial (for opening and closing
submissions and each witness to be called) at the pre-trial review, but leaving it to the
parties to decide which witnesses and what evidence to call in the time available,
subject to a power to limit the number of witnesses called on a particular issue.
Notes
See the discussion of O 34 5A of the Western Australian Supreme Court Rules in Section 21 below.
|
 |
|