CONFIDENTIAL
機密
XCC(74)51
- 2
on magistrates but less than those conferred upon the Supreme Court. It is evident, therefore, that in its civil jurisdiction the District Court was originally intended to cater for matters at grass root level at small cost to litigants. However, the position has changed following increases in its civil jurisdiction.
5
While it is acknowledged that the operation of the civil jurisdiction of the District Court is generally successful, it is considered that its present system is not entirely suitable for the settlement of minor claims. The need for a special court to deal with minor claims was argued by the Director of Home Affairs, who pointed out that enquiries made by City District Officers revealed that to the majority of the public the District Court was unpopular as a means of pursuing minor claims, as they considered the proceedings too lengthy, formal and expensive. The major expense involved in District Court litigation is in the engagement of solicitors. It is generally believed by most people that legal representation in the District Court is either required by law or necessary if a case is to be won. Moreover, due to the work load of the District Court, a case is often heard about three months after a writ of summons is first filed. Some unrepresented litigants also find it difficult to complete the various court forms, especially the claim and defence statements. The Director cited also the traditional reluctance among the general public of becoming involved in litigation, in particular when neighbours are concerned. The result was that certain types of minor disputes remained unresolved and the evidence suggested that consideration should be given to the establish- ment of a simpler procedure for handling small claims.
6
The working group examined the literature on the experience gained from similar procedures established in the United Kingdom and the United States. It also considered a proposal that civil jurisdiction might be given to permanent magistrates, thus reverting to the situation prior to 1969 under which magistrates had a limited jurisdiction to determine certain types of civil claims. However, the working group concluded that the grant of civil jurisdiction to magistrates would not represent a satisfactory solution, considering:
(a) the entirely different procedures and manner that
a magistrate would have to adopt for his criminal and civil jurisdiction;
(b) the desirability that proceedings should be conducted in the vernacular by a Cantonese-speaking presiding officer;
(c) the additional expense of establishing separate
registries for each court; and
CONFIDENTIAL
機密
CONFIDENTIAL
· 3
機密
XCC(74)51
(d) the desirability, certainly in the initial stages,
that there should be a consistency in judgments which would be difficult to achieve if the
responsibility were to be diffused throughout the magistrates' courts.
Alternatives
7
Eventually, further detailed consideration was given to the following alternatives:
(a) extension of the jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal;
(b)
a separate tribunal with procedure similar to the Labour Tribunal; and
(c) a special procedure in the District Court for
dealing with minor claims.
8
The first approach was not considered appropriate even though it represented the original suggestion (paragraph 2 above). Since its establishment the Labour Tribunal has developed an expertise in the field of labour disputes and is clearly regarded by the public as a specialist in labour matters. It was considered, therefore, that if small claims were to be brought within its jurisdiction its character would be so altered as to damage the image and acceptability which it has built up. The Commissioner of Labour feels particularly strongly on this point and the Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunal, supports his views.
C.S. 166
9
The solution eventually favoured by the working group is an amalgam of the proposals at paragraph 7(b) and (c) above. An entirely separate tribunal was considered to be an unnecessary duplication of certain existing facilities already available within the District Court. It is preferable to utilise the resources of an existing system, provided that it is considered adequate, rather than setting up a new one.
On the other hand, it would be difficult to convince the public that a procedure firmly within the existing District Court structure would amount to anything more than tinkering with a system which had not entirely satisfied their needs. The working group proposes, therefore, that a tribunal with its own distinct procedure should be set up as a separate division of the District Court to deal with small claims. It is recommended that it should be designated as the "District Court Small Claims Tribunal", and in Chinese,
for and that its officers should be called "Adjudicators", and in Chinese,..
「審裁官 It is proposed also that the legislation should provide for both the English and the Chinese titles of the Tribunal and its officers.
ر
CONFIDENTIAL
機
密
CONFIDENTIAL 機密
XCC(74)51
Jurisdiction
10
The monetary limit of jurisdiction of the proposed Tribunal must be established at a level sufficient to satisfy the needs referred to in paragraph 5 above but not so high as to blur the distinction between it and the District Court nor to result, certainly in the initial stages when it is difficult to estimate the potential demand, in it being over- whelmed. It is later in this paper also proposed that legal representation should not be permitted and this is another reason for restricting the level. In the light of these criteria, and of an examination of the statistics of cases handled in the District Court, it is suggested that the maximum jurisdiction should be set at $3,000. Provision might be made in the draft bill for increasing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by resolution of the Legislative Council. After taking into account a rough estimate of the demand not at present satisfied by the existing District Court procedure, it is anticipated that the proposed limit would cover some 20,000 cases per annum of which about 4, 000 would be contested.
11
It is proposed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, when established, will include the following types of claims:
12
(a) costs of multi-storey building maintenance and
common services;
(b) small debts on business disputes (including
dishonoured cheques and claims for non-payment of goods sold and delivered);
(c) ascertainable sums due on simple contracts but
excluding debts recoverable by money lenders licensed under the Money Lenders Ordinance (Chapter 163); and
(d) compensation cases (including traffic accidents,
common assault and injuries or damage to personal property).
The types of claims to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are listed below:
(a) landlord and tenant matters, except claims in connection with costs of multi-storey building maintenance and common services;
(b) the following proceedings listed in Part II of the
Schedule to the Legal Aid Ordinance (Chapter 91):
CONFIDENTIAL
機密
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.