would not be sufficient evidence of the despatch thereof. This type of discrepancy between the standards of proof required in Court and standards accepted as being reasonable by ordinary citizens could lead to distrust of the law, lawyers and the Courts. In this context the Bar Committee welcomes the interest which the Chief Justice has shown in the question of establishing a Commercial Court in Hong Kong along the lines envisaged in New South Wales, Australia.
It seems to me, however, that within the legal provisions as they exist at present, a great deal could be done to make legal proceedings more efficient than is, in fact, at present achieved. The fault here lies, to a large extent, with practi- tioners. All too often one sees in Court witnesses being taken through lengthy evidence when all that they are in fact doing is to reiterate statements, notes and letters written at the relevant times. They have no independent recollections (and cannot be reasonably expected to have any independent recollection) apart from such statements, notes and letters. All too often practitioners forget that under the Evidence Ordinance, when the Court is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused, the Court has power to admit documentary evidence notwithstanding that the maker of the statement is available but is not called as a witness. It seems to me that this is nothing more than the application of common sense: and where application are made to the Court for the admission of documentary evidence it is to be hoped that the Court will exercise its discretion in a liberal
manner.
(2) Superfluity of Authorities
The Bar Committee deprecates the tendency of some members of the Bar to bring into Court (even in cases involving simple issues of fact) numerous "authorities" to which they refer, many of which have little, if any, bearing on
- 4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.