XN000022-1988-05-18 — Page 18

16

-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1988

INCREASE PROPOSED IN LIMITS OF JURISDICTION

#

THE MAIN PURPOSE OP THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1988 IS TO INCREASE THE LIMITS OF JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN CIVIL MATTERS AND OF THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON JEREMY MATHEWS, SAID IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THR BILL, MR MATHEWS SAID INCREASES IN THESE JURISDICTION LIMITS WERE RECOMMENDED IN DECEMBER 1986 BY MR PETER ROBINSON IN HIS REPORT ON THE HONG KONG JUDICIARY.

ΤΟ

"AT PRESENT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS GENERAL JURISDICTION DEAL WITH CLAIMS IN CONTRACT OR TORT WHERE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IS, OR IS WORTH, NOT MORE THAN $60,000," MR MATHEWS SAID.

"SIMILARLY IN RELATION TO SUCH MATTERS AS THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN ESTATE OR OF TRUST PROPERTY THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION WHERE THE PROPERTY IS WORTH NOT MORE THAN $60,000."

WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE FOR THE RECOVERY OF LAND OR RELATED TO THE TITLE TO LAND, THE JURISDICTION LIMIT WAS THAT THE RATEABLE OR ANNUAL VALUE OF THE LAND MUST BE NOT MORE THAN $45,000. THESE LIMITS WERE SET IN 1983.

THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD DEAL WITH A RANGE OF CIVIL MATTERS WHERE THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS, OR WAS WORTH, NOT MORE THAN $8,000. THIS LIMIT WAS SET IN 1986.

MR MATHEWS SAID THE ROBINSON REPORT FELT THAT SOME CIVIL WORK WAS BEING DONE AT TOO HIGH A LEVEL.

THIS RESULTED IN AN INEFFICIENT USE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, HIGH LITIGATION COSTS FOR CLAIMS THAT WERE

NOT, IN TODAY'S TERMS, VERY LARGE AND CONSEQUENT DISCOURAGEMENT OF SOME POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS.

COURT WAS UNDERLOADED

THE REPORT ALSO FELT THAT THE DISTRICT WITH CIVIL WORK AND COULD RELIEVE THE HIGH COURT OF SOME OF ITS BURDEN. IT ACCORDINGLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION SHOULD BE RAISED TO $250,000.

GENERAL

"CONSULTATIONS ON THIS RECOMMENDATION HAVE REVEALED, HOWEVER, THAT AN IMMEDIATE INCREASE TO THAT LEVEL WOULD NOT BE ADVISABLE, MR MATHEWS SAID.

"IT WOULD BRING INTO THE DISTRICT COURT A CLASS OF LITIGATION INVOLVING QUITE SIZEABLE SUMS OF MONEY FOR WHICH ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE DO NOT AT PRESENT PROVIDE ADEQUATE INTERLOCUTORY

PROCEDURES.

"THE PROPOSAL