Advertisement

China: Hong Kong. Selective Adoption of the English Woolf Reforms

  • Peter C. H. ChanEmail author
  • David Chan
  • Chen Lei
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 31)

Abstract

In the past, the Hong Kong judge played a passive role in case management. Undue delay became a by-product of such judicial inactivity. Litigation became far too adversarial and procedural deadlines were often unenforced. The root of the problem lay in the court’s overemphasis on the notion of ‘justice on the merits’ at the expense of procedural efficiency. Since the Civil Justice Reform (CJR) in 2009, the goal of civil justice has transcended the search for pure substantive justice and embraced a multi-faceted agenda to promote procedural efficiency and reasonable proportionality, as well as to encourage settlement. The CJR conferred extensive case management powers to the judge. The court is now equipped with greater discretionary powers to enforce procedural deadlines, limit discovery and administer the litigation timetable. This chapter critically examines the impact of the CJR on case management in Hong Kong, placing particular focus on fact-finding, the problem of undue delay and the new mediation regime.

Keywords

District Court Civil Procedure Civil Case Practice Direction Witness Statement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander N (2009) International and comparative mediation: legal perspectives. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander N (2010) Mediation: process and practice in Hong Kong, 1st edn. LexisNexis, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  3. Chief Justice Ma G (2010) Efficiency at all costs – true or bluff? In: Meggitt G (ed) Civil justice reform – what has it achieved? Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  4. Chief Justice’s Working Party on Civil Justice Reform (2001) Civil justice reform: interim report and consultative paper. 21 November 2001Google Scholar
  5. Chief Justice’s Working Party on Civil Justice Reform (2004) The final report of the Chief Justice’s Working Party on Civil Justice Reform. 3 March 2004Google Scholar
  6. Justice Chan P, Rogers M (eds) (2012) Hong Kong civil procedure 2012, vol 1. Sweet & Maxwell, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  7. Lam J (2010) Mediation in the context of CJR: the role of the judiciary. In: Meggitt G (ed) Civil justice reform – what has it achieved? Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, Hong Kong, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  8. Legislative Council Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services (2010) The first year’s implementation of the civil justice reform from 2 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. LC paper no. CB(2)591/10–11(06), December 2010Google Scholar
  9. Leubsdorf J (1999) The myth of civil procedure reform. In: Zuckerman AAS (ed) Civil justice in crisis: comparative perspectives of civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Malik WH (2007) Judiciary-led reforms in Singapore: framework, strategies, and lessons. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rogers M (2010) Making the system work in practice. In: Meggitt G (ed) Civil justice reform – what has it achieved? Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, Hong Kong, pp 25–34Google Scholar
  12. Wesley-Smith P (1994) The sources of Hong Kong law. Hong Kong University Press, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  13. Wilkinson M, Cheung ETM, Booth CN (2011) A guide to civil procedure in Hong Kong, 4th edn. LexisNexis, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  14. Working Group on Mediation (2010) Report of the Working Group on Mediation. February 2010Google Scholar
  15. Yuen R (2010) Case-management: jurisdiction and order. In: Meggitt G (ed) Civil justice reform – what has it achieved? Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, Hong Kong, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  16. Zuckerman AAS (1999) Justice in crisis: comparative dimensions of civil procedure. In: Zuckerman AAS (ed) Civil justice in crisis: comparative perspectives of civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zuckerman AAS (2009) The challenge of civil justice reform: effective court management of litigation. City Univ Hong Kong Law Rev 1(1):49–71Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City University Hong KongHong KongPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Hong KongPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations