Hong Kong: Reform Of Civil Procedure In Hong Kong

The Current State Of Play, And The Likely Impact On Insurers
Last Updated: 14 October 2002

The reform of civil procedure in Hong Kong is gathering momentum. The Interim Report and Consultative Paper of the Chief Justice’s Working Party on Civil Justice Reform was published on 29 November 2001. The Law Society’s Working Party on Civil Justice Reform released its own report and commentary in April 2002, and the Hong Kong Bar Association released its Response on 28 June 2002. Divergent approaches to the appropriate method of reform are now apparent, although there appears to be consensus on the need to take action to make Hong Kong’s civil justice system more user-friendly and efficient, and less expensive. Insurers, as wholesale users of the civil justice system, have a real interest in the outcome of the reform process.

In its report, the Chief Justice’s Working Party signalled that it was largely in favour of the wholesale adoption of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), widely known as the ‘Woolf Reforms’, which have been in effect in England and Wales since April 1999. These would, in effect, replace Hong Kong’s current civil procedure rules with an entirely new procedural regime. The Law Society Working Party and the Bar Association Working Party, approaching the issue from different directions, have both concluded that a more selective approach to reform is preferable – essentially, to "cherry-pick" the best aspects of the available options.

The principal defects in the current regime, as identified in the Chief Justice’s report, are that civil litigation in Hong Kong is:

  • too expensive
  • too slow
  • too complex
  • unequal

There was also concern expressed about the large and rising number of litigants before the Hong Kong courts who were not legally represented.

These are almost the same criticisms highlighted by the Woolf Report in England and which indeed have been raised elsewhere.

A point which is emphasised on the issue of cost is not simply that litigation is too costly across the board, but that costs are frequently disproportionate to the amount of money involved. Similarly, there are too many procedural hurdles in what should be relatively straight-forward matters.

The Working Party examined the reasons for these problems, and ultimately placed most of the blame on the Rules of Court and on solicitors’ conduct of proceedings. The Working Party concluded that Counsel’s fees in Hong Kong are not particularly excessive, compared to other jurisdictions, but did not deal with that point in any detail. There was also relatively little consideration of the role of the judiciary in the manner in which civil proceedings are currently conducted.

A number of options for reform taken from other jurisdictions were reviewed, but the major emphasis of the report is on the implementation of the Woolf Reforms. This is probably not surprising, given that Hong Kong’s High Court Rules were, prior to the introduction of CPR, almost identical to the English Rules. Further, Hong Kong’s legal profession has traditionally included a high proportion of lawyers trained in England. It is therefore logical that Hong Kong would look very closely at reforms adopted in England with a view to following suit, and thus be able to benefit from the accumulated experience of CPR in England. While it is not suggested that the Working Party paid inadequate attention to other options, it is clear from the report that Woolf Reforms were the preferred option. One reason for this may simply be cost; for example, the "docket" system which was adopted in some States in the US, whereby a judge is assigned a case from the outset and has the conduct of it from then on, would inevitably require an expansion in the number of judges, and would probably entail further training of current judges.

The Woolf Reforms are therefore the framework that was adopted in the Working Party’s report, and it is reasonable to assume that any discussion of the reform of civil procedure is really a question of whether or not the CPR should be adopted, and if so, whether they should be adopted in their entirety or selectively.

CPR – the objectives

The CPR embraced as an overriding objective the principle that cases should be dealt with justly and in such a way as to save expense. It was thought essential to ensure that the costs of the case were proportional to the amount of money involved and the complexity of the case itself, to deal with each case expeditiously and fairly and to balance the needs of the case against the other cases requiring the Courts’ resources. The CPR were drafted to embody these objectives and a comprehensive case management system was adopted (as distinct from the ad hoc case management that took place prior to the reforms and which takes place in Hong Kong now).

As practitioners in England and Wales will readily acknowledge, the manner in which civil litigation is conducted under CPR is radically different than under previous rules. Without attempting to provide an exhaustive rundown of the CPR’s new features, some of the aspects of the CPR that would affect insurers and their legal advisors, if adopted in Hong Kong, are as follows.

Case management

Case management involves the Court taking an increasingly proactive role in the manner in which the proceedings are conducted, rather than leaving it in the hands of parties or their lawyers. In theory, it would mean that at an early stage in the proceedings, the Court would take charge of the direction of the case, and then supervise the parties and progress of the case. This ought to mean far less scope for delaying tactics, unnecessary applications, and prevent parties from pursuing marginal or pointless issues. From the point of view of an insurer defending an action on behalf of its insured, comprehensive case management ought to have the beneficial effect of cutting down the costs of both parties. There ought to be, of course, also less scope for delay. It is a well-known tactic adopted by Defendants to seek to delay the proceedings in the hope that the Plaintiff will be dissuaded from proceeding or will be sufficiently discouraged to settle on more favourable terms.

Pre-action protocols and stricter requirements in relation to pleadings

The effect of the CPR’s pre-action protocols is to require parties to, in effect, prepare their case fully before commencing proceedings, and to provide the other side with enough information to make a reasoned decision on whether or not to contest the case. Under the CPR, there are different protocols for different areas of practice, tailored to the specific requirements of each area. Hong Kong has already had limited exposure to a regime similar to this. The best known example is the Practice Direction PD 18.1 for personal injuries actions, which came into effect on 19 February 2001. This very comprehensive Practice Direction effectively re-defined the whole procedure for commencing and pursuing personal injuries actions. Experience suggests that insurers have benefited from the fact that the Plaintiffs are required to furnish more information in relation to their claims, with the result that claims can be settled (or at least liability can be established) at a relatively early stage. The downside to this approach is the fact the claim is "front-end loaded" ie the costs incurred prior to commencing proceedings are noticeably higher than cases where no pre-action protocols apply.

The CPR goes much further than this, of course, by also requiring parties to be far more specific when pleading cases, and by requiring parties to verify pleadings with a "statement of truth". The purpose behind these rules is to prevent parties from obfuscating. Again, from an insurers’ point of view, the advantage is that less costs would be incurred in unnecessary points, and that the avenues for delaying a claim (by, for example, raising numerous alternative arguments to defend the claim) are greatly reduced.

Discovery

The CPR has had a major effect on the discovery stage of litigation. At present, the obligations in relation to disclosure in Hong Kong are very broad, and in many cases involve considerable time and expense in searching for, collating and listing documents, the large majority of which are of marginal or even no real relevance to the case. The CPR provisions in relation to discovery limit disclosure to a much narrower range of documents. The CPR also make it clear that the scope of discovery will depend on the complexity and the value of the claim. If these measures are adopted in Hong Kong, the position again would be that the scope for dragging out proceedings by pursuing requests for disclosure is greatly reduced. Conversely, however, it may also be more difficult to compel a party to discover documents that are likely to lead on a chain of enquiry to further documents, perhaps thereby limiting the scope for attacking its case. The reduced ambit of discovery and the corresponding reduction in a number of documents together with the time spent dealing with discovery, will usually mean less costs for the insurers to shoulder.

Settlement offers

The CPR introduced a new regime governing settlement offers. Currently, only a Defendant has the option of making a payment into Court, thereby putting the Plaintiff at risk for costs. This is an effective (although perhaps under-utilised) tactic available to Defendants.

Under the CPR the Plaintiff is also able to make an offer to settle. If this offer is not accepted, and is eventually bettered by the Plaintiff, then the Court could award much higher levels of costs, and punitive interest, against the Defendant. Obviously, this could put greater pressure on insurers to settle claims earlier, especially if such an offer is made before proceedings are commenced.

The principles governing payments into Court by Defendants were not substantively altered by the CPR.

Herbert Smith’s experience of litigation under the CPR

Herbert Smith has probably the widest experience of litigating under the CPR. Our main conclusions, after three years of the new system, can be summarised as follows:

  • case management by the courts can lead to unexpected and unfair results, which are very difficult to appeal;
  • the pre-action protocols, coupled with Plaintiff’s offers and active case management, have materially advantaged Plaintiffs, who can put huge pressure on Defendants to settle at an early stage;
  • the ‘front-loading’ of costs tends to mean that, although actions are on average settled at an earlier stage, the costs savings, if any, are minimal.

Response to the CJ’s Working Party’s proposals – The Law Society

The Law Society Working Party is not satisfied that the Woolf Reforms have proven to be the panacea they are often portrayed to have been. It believes that delay and expense of litigation proceedings can be addressed by a more stringent adherence to the present High Court Rules rather than a whole-hearted adoption of a completely new regime. It did, however, agree that some radical new approaches are needed for some matters to make dispute resolution more cost effective and expeditious, including a more streamlined discovery process which keeps the present wide test of relevance.

The Bar Association

The Bar Association Working Party has welcomed the Chief Justice’s appointment of a Working Party to review the civil justice system with a view "to ensuring and improving access to justice and reasonable cost and speed". It generally supports many of the proposed amendments but highlights the need for further and continuing consultation.

The Bar’s response to the consultation paper sets out general concerns that increased expediency of civil procedure may be at the expense of justice and that the proposed reforms may not lead to any substantial saving of legal costs.

The Bar Association Working Party supports the Working Party’s objective regarding case management but emphasises the need for the improved quality and training of both members of the Bar and judges and a more efficient system of allocation of cases to these judges.

The next step

The Chief Justice’s Working Party is presently reviewing all of the response to the proposals it made in its Consultative Paper. The next step is for the Working Party to produce firm recommendations for reform, which may happen before the end of 2002.

Conclusions

It is common ground between the Law Society and the Bar Association that a whole-hearted implementation of the English CPR is not necessary in Hong Kong.

A type of ‘cherry-picking’ exercise has been suggested by both as being a more appropriate method of upgrading Hong Kong’s Civil Justice system; a process of selection which would allow a tweaking of some of the present rules and a complete overhaul of others, as necessary. It would also allow room for the incorporation of successful procedural methods or rules from jurisdictions other than England and Wales which do not seem to encounter the delays, complexities, expense and perceived unfairness of parts of the Hong Kong civil justice system.

Adoption of the Woolf Reforms in Hong Kong would inevitably involve teething problems, with no Hong Kong case law to refer to. Lord Woolf himself, when implementing CPR in England and Wales, commented that the notes to the Rules of the Supreme Court in force prior to April 1999 are now of ‘historic interest only’ and that "all learning should be forgotten". The Hong Kong courts would presumably look to English case law for guidance in solving any such teething problems.

The accumulated knowledge and expertise in Hong Kong would not need to be ‘forgotten’ however, with a selective or cherry-picking approach.

Which areas to replace or change and how, is still a matter of considerable debate. Insurers should nevertheless assume that reforms will be implemented that will result in a greater level of case management, greater pressure on Defendants to settle at an early stage, and some curtailment of interlocutory proceedings.

© Herbert Smith 2002

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions