WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1992
"I
WOULD
SHOULD EMPHASISE THAT THIS SECONDARY USE OF THE FUND
LIMITED ΤΟ DEALING WITH PROBLEMS WITH SYSTEMIC IMPLICATIONS AND NOT FOR BAILING OUT INDIVIDUAL BANKS PER SE.
BE
STRICTLY
"WHILE THERE MIGHT BE OCCASIONS WHERE THE
OF RESCUE
AN INDIVIDUAL BANK PROVED NECESSARY TO PREVENT A DOMINO EFFECT ACROSS THE ITS WHOLE BANKING SYSTEM, EACH CASE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE EXAMINED ON MERITS."
THIS SECONDARY PURPOSE WOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING EXCHANGE RATE STABILITY.
SHOULD THERE BE ANY CONFLICT, 'THE PRIMARY PURPOSE WOULD PREVAIL, HE SAID.
A
PRESENTLY MONETARY
CLAUSES 6 TO 45 OF THE BILL CONTAIN CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO NUMBER OF ORDINANCES TO TRANSFER THE STATUTORY POWERS VESTED IN THE COMMISSIONER OF BANKING AND THE SECRETARY FOR AFFAIRS IN SUCH ORDINANCES TO THE MONETARY AUTHORITY.
DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.
0
DISTRICT COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992 INTRODUCED
* *
PROPOSED LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATIVE
TO IMPROVE COUNCIL TODAY
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN
DISTRICT COURT.
THE
MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE DISTRICT COURT (AMENDMENT) AT PRESENT, BILL 1992, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR JEREMY MATHEWS, SAID
MADE AN ORDER IN A DISTRICT JUDGE WHO HAD DELIVERED A JUDGEMENT OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS WAS ENTITLED, OF HIS OWN MOTION OR UPON APPLICATION, TO RE-OPEN A CASE AND REVERSE OR VARY HIS JUDGEMENT OR ORDER.
HE
FURTHERMORE, WHERE A DISTRICT JUDGE SUBSEQUENTLY RECORDED IN WRITING THE REASONS HE DELIVERED ORALLY,
MIGHT MODIFY HIS LEGAL
REASONING.
SUCH OF
"THE COURT OF APPEAL COMMENTED IN 1990, AND I AGREE, THAT CONFIDENCE POWERS DO NOT ENHANCE GENERAL
IN THE ADMINISTRATION
** MR MATHEWS JUSTICE. BY CLAUSES 2 AND 3 THE BILL REPEALS THESE POWERS, SAID,
CASE, IN LIMITED
WHERE A DISTRICT JUDGE DELIVERED ORAL REASONS IN A CIVIL
NEEDED THE REASONS
ONLY BE RECORDED
WRITING IN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE
OF
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
THE IN
DISTRICT
COURT, THIS WAS CLEARLY INAPPROPRIATE, MR MATHEWS SAID,
/"THE BILL