XN000022-1986-04-23 — Page 33

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1986

31

CALL TO RETAIN 60-DAY LIMIT FOR HEARING CLAIMS

*****

UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SUPPORT THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE STIPULATION THAT A CASE CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL EARLIER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE CLAIM.

HOWEVER, THEY BELIEVE THAT THE STATUTORY LIMIT THAT IT MUST BE HEARD NOT LATER THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE CLAIM SHOULD BE RETAINED.

THIS WAS STATED BY DR THE HON HENRIETTA IP, CONVENER OF THE AD HOC GROUP TO STUDY THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1986, TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

SPEAKING DURING THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE BILL, DR IP SAID MEMBERS SUPPORTED THE REMOVAL OF THE 10-DAY BAR BECAUSE IT WOULD ENABLE CONSUMERS, PARTICULARLY SHORT STAY TOURISTS, TO OBTAIN SPEEDY REDRESS AGAINST MALPRACTICES BY UNSCRUPULOUS RETAILERS.

MEMBERS HOWEVER WERE NOT CONVINCED OF THE ARGUMENTS

TO INCREASE THE 60-DAY LIMIT TO 90 DAYS, SHE SAID.

+THE MAIN CONCERN OF MEMBERS IS THAT THE ESSENCE OF A SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IS THAT IT SHOULD ALLOW SMALL CLAIMS TO BE PURSUED IN A QUICK AND INEXPENSIVE MANNER AND THESE CHARACTERISTICS SHOULD NOT BE UNNECESSARILY TAMPERED WITH+.

THE PROPOSED 90-DAY LIMIT APPEARED TO BE TOO LONG FOR THE EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF SUCH A TRIBUNAL, SHE SAID.

DR IP NOTED THAT THE AD HOC GROUP HAD HAD LENGTHY AND DETAILED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT.

+AS A RESULT, MEMBERS ARE KEENLY AWARE AND DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT THE HEAVY WORKLOAD OF THE TRIBUNALS MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MEET THE 60-DAY LIMIT AND A FURTHER INCREASE IN WORKLOAD WHICH IS ANTICIPATED FROM THE INCREASE IN JURISDICTION, WILL WORSEN THE SITUATION, SHE SAID.

DR IP SAID THAT THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT FOR SETTING CASES DOWN FOR HEARING COULD ONLY BE COMPLIED WITH BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY ORGANISATIONS WHICH WISHED TO FILE LARGE BATCHES OF CLAIMS AT ONE TIME WERE REQUESTED TO STAGGER THE FILING.

SHE SAID MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC GROUP WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT THIS SITUATION WAS NOT SATISFACTORY ALTHOUGH IT WAS NEVER APPLIED TO CLAIMS BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.

/MEMBERS CONSIDERED