After further consultation and consideration, the Administration has accepted the Working Party's recommendations. The implementation of these recommendations will entail extensive amendments to the District Court Ordinance. Some of the Working Party's recommended financial limits also have had to be revised further to take account of inflation and the increase in property prices and rental values since the Report was completed.
The Bill proposes to raise the various financial limits of the civil jurisdiction of the District Court to enable more civil cases dealing with claims in contract or tort to be heard in the District Court, and also to reflect inflation and the rise in property prices and rental values since these limits were fixed. These proposals include revising the general jurisdiction of the District Court in respect of contract and tort from $120,000 to $300,000; and in respect of the recovery of land or the title to land from a rateable value of $100,000 to $500,000. For claims in respect of personal injuries, the Bill proposes a financial ceiling of $600,000.
The Bill also makes clear that the District Court has jurisdiction over applications made under section 6 of the Married Persons Status Ordinance. That section enables a married person to seek a determination by the court of any question between the married couple as to the title to or possession of property. The various amendments to the jurisdiction of the court are found in amendments contained in clauses 19 to 21.
The proposed increase in the District Court's jurisdiction may mean that some cases are started in that court which would more appropriately be dealt with in the High Court. It is therefore proposed that the District Court should have the power, either on its own motion or on the application of any party, to order the transfer to the High Court of all or part of the proceedings before it. This power is set out in the proposed new section 43, in clause 21. That clause also contains new sections providing for the transfer to the District Court of cases inappropriately commenced in the High Court and vice versa. A court that orders a transfer of proceedings in the situations I have described is empowered to make an order for costs both prior to the transfer and in respect of the transfer.
The increase in the jurisdictional limit of the District Court is also likely to result in additional judicial work being handled by the Registrar of the District Court. This is reflected in amendments to the Ordinance that recognize the Registrar's role in the court process. For example, the proposed new section 71A of the Ordinance, in clause 38, empowers the Registrar to apply to the Court for an order giving directions to a court bailiff in a difficult or doubtful case. And proposed new section 71B, in the same clause, provides protection to the Registrar for acts done by a bailiff in accordance with directions given by the Registrar or the Court.