 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
(b)
An entirely new code would mean more disruption
The effort involved in effecting a major reform to the civil justice system would be
substantial whichever approach is adopted. However, whereas the Proposal 75
approach of amending the RHC might involve more effort in the initial drafting
process, it is likely to make considerably fewer demands on the legal community as a
whole.
Learning about amendments and additions to familiar rules in the RHC will
take some doing. But it would be less disruptive and less demanding than to require
everyone to master an entirely new procedural code. If, for example, we were to adopt
the CPR, every member of the legal community would have to learn not only what
changes have been made and what new measures introduced, but also the new
terminology and where exactly in the new rules equivalents - if they exist - of
procedures presently contained in the Orders of the RHC are to be found. They would
also have to familiarise themselves with the case-law that has developed in relation to
the CPR in England and Wales and discard much of the familiar case-law illuminating
the RHC.
While it is tempting to think that adopting the CPR wholesale would result in huge
savings in the drafting department, adopting the CPR methodology of introducing
broadly formulated rules coupled with practice directions and practice guides
would
still necessitate a substantial amount of drafting work, as well as consultation with
local interest groups, to ensure that the Hong Kong version of each rule and practice
direction is properly adapted to local conditions. Additionally, a fresh Chinese
translation would have to be prepared, an effort hard to justify in the light of the
serviceable Chinese version which presently exists, as explained below. A significant
cost in terms of drafting would be involved even if the Proposal 74 approach were to
be adopted.
Notes
Meaning the elements of our legal community, being members of the legal profession and otherwise,
which may have cause to be concerned with civil litigation.
|
 |
|