XN000022-1988-05-18 — Page 19

17

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1988

"THE PROPOSAL IS, THEREFORE, THAT FOR THE TIME BRING THE DISTRICT COURT'S GENERAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SHOULD BE INCREASED ONLY TO $120,000 - THAT IS TO SAY DOUBLE THE PREVIOUS FIGURE

AND THAT THE JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO LAND BE INCREASED TO $100,000.

-

"MEANWHILE, WORK WILL BE SET IN HAND TO MAKE THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULES OF PROCEDURE.

"ONCE THAT HAS BEEN DONE, THE QUESTION OF INCREASING THE GENERAL CIVIL JURISDICTION TO $250,000 WILL DE LOOKED AT AGAIN.

TRIBUNAL, IT

MR MATHEWS SAID THAT AS REGARDS THE SMALL CLAIMS WAS PROPOSED THAT ITS JURISDICTION BE INCREASED TO $15,000.

THE BILL ALSO SOUGHT TO AMEND THE SMALL CLAIMJ TRIBUNAL ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 338) AND THE LABOUR TRIBUNAL ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 25) SO AS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO APPEAL LAY то THE COURT OF APPEAL FROM A REFUSAL BY THE HIGH COURT TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL TO ITSELF FROM THE LABOUR TRIBUNAL OR THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

TH

"THIS BRINGS THE POSITION IN THESE TRIBUNALS INTO LINE WITH WHAT IT IS UNDER THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY ELSEWHERE, HE SAID.

MR MATHEWS NOTED THAT CLAUSE 4(A) OF THE BILL PROVIDED FOR THE REPEAL OF SECTION 46 OF THE DISTRICT COURT ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED IN THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION'S REPORT ON "YOUNG PERSONS EFFECTS OF AGE IN CIVIL LAW" IN 1986.

―

THAT SECTION PREVENTED PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 FROM RELYING ON THE COMMON LAW DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO MINORS WHEN THEY WERE SUED FOR DEBT OR OTHER LIABILITIES.

"HOWEVER, SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THIS BILL THE GOVERNMENT

IS HAS DECIDED TO LOOK AGAIN AT THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS

THE RIGHT TIME AND VEHICLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION, AND IT IS LIKELY THAT THE

WILL BE

ΤΟ

CLAUSE 4 (A) AT A LATER STAGE, HE SAID.

GOVERNMENT

+

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.

PROPOSING

AMENDMENTS

0

/18