Press Release

 

 

LC: District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999

****************************************

The following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, in resuming the Second Reading debate of the District Court(Amendment)Bill 1999 in the Legislative Council today (May 17):

Madam President:

I introduced the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 into this Council on 13 October 1999. The Bill seeks to adjust the various financial limits of the civil jurisdiction of the District Court and introduce a civil procedural framework into the District Court which is more akin to that of the Court of First Instance. It is hoped that litigation cost in Hong Kong might be lowered with the introduction of these measures, thereby promoting public access to justice. Accordingly, with respect to the financial limits, the present Bill proposes the following -

(i) the civil jurisdiction of the District Court be increased from $120,000 to $600,000;

(ii) the jurisdiction of recovery of land be increased from a rateable value of $100,000 to $240,000;

(iii) the jurisdiction where title of land is in question be increased from a rateable value of $100,000 to $240,000; and

(iv) equity jurisdiction be increased from $120,000 to $600,000 or to $3,000,000 where land is involved.

We estimate that, upon implementation of these new limits, about 50% of cases filed with the Court of First Instance may be diverted to the District Court annually, alongside an increased diversion of interlocutory applications, trials listed, and taxation cases. Civil cases in the District Court will also be handled in accordance with a set of comprehensive and formal procedures modelled on those of the Rules of the High Court. To ensure that the District Court would be able to handle the additional caseload under the new Rules of the District Court efficiently, a Master system, similar to that in the High Court, will be introduced in the District Court. Under this system, the posts of registrar and deputy registrars of the District Court will be filled by legally qualified judicial officers. They will deal with less contentious interlocutory applications expeditiously, leaving to District Judges more contentious applications and cases requiring trials. The Judiciary will also put in place other measures, such as increasing the number of District Court judges in the civil division, appointing experienced judges to take charge of the personal injuries list and land cases, providing training for District Court judges, and constructing additional courtrooms, to cope with the new workload.

Specifically on training, I understand that the Judiciary is organizing a series of seminars on civil trials, vendor and purchaser summonses, personal injuries, and interlocutory matters for judges and judicial officers in anticipation of the increase in civil jurisdiction of the District Court.

The Bills Committee on the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999, under the chairmanship of the Honourable Margaret Ng, has held 11 meetings with the Administration since the introduction of the Bill in October 1999. The Bills Committee has examined the Bill in great detail and in a most expeditious manner. Members have tendered a series of constructive suggestions on how the Bill might be improved. Taking into account the Bills Committee's valuable advice, the Administration will move a total of 18 Committee Stage Amendments to the Bill, which I shall explain in greater detail at the Committee Stage. I would like to express the Administration's appreciation of the meticulous work of the Bills Committee, and to urge Members to support the amendments proposed by the Administration.

The Bills Committee also requested the Administration to clarify the applicability of the District Court Ordinance with regard to the Government and the State. We are aware that the District Court Ordinance deals to some extent with the question of proceedings against "the Crown" or the "Government", which should ideally be rationalized and modernized as soon as possible after Reunification. However, the question needs to be resolved within the overall context of the adaptation of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance. After consulting the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services of this Council in January 1999, we decided to proceed with the introduction of the District Court (Amendment) Bill and leave unamended the provisions relating to proceedings against "the Crown" or "the Government". In preparing the current Bill, it came to our notice that amendments to section 72 of the District Court Ordinance were required for the District Court Rules Committee to be empowered properly to make rules to give effect to the measures proposed in the Bill. Consistent with the approach in section 72 of the District Court Ordinance, which underwent adaptation once in April 1998, we decided to prepare new section 72 in a way that made it possible for the new rules to apply to proceedings by or against the Government. We do not consider that the reference to "the Government" in the existing or proposed rule-making powers in section 72 of the District Court Ordinance has the effect of excluding from that court's jurisdiction any claim by or against Offices set up by the Central People's Government in Hong Kong that can be brought under the Crown Proceedings Ordinance. It remains our intention to revisit all court-related Ordinances, including the District Court Ordinance, and proceed with their full adaptation, after the adaptation of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance has been completed. Pending adaptation, the application of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance to CPG Offices in Hong Kong would be a matter for the courts to decide in the circumstances of a particular case, having regard to the manner in which "the Crown" was affected by the Crown Proceedings Ordinance before Reunification; the position of CPG Offices under the Basic Law; the Garrison Law; and the Reunification Ordinance.

After the passage of the Bill and implementation of the new jurisdictional limits, the Judiciary will review the impact on demand for court services; assess the pattern of litigation costs, as well as the resource implications on the Judiciary, in the light of actual increase in caseload; and recruit and develop qualified judges and judicial officers. It is our intention to further increase the general jurisdictional limit of the District Court to $1 million in two years' time, subject to the result of the Judiciary's review.

The improvement measures contained in the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 are long-awaited. The early implementation of these measures is the common aspiration of the Administration, the Judiciary, the legal profession, and the community at large. Subject to the passage of the Bill by this Council later this afternoon, the District Court Rules Committee aims to make the new Rules of the District Court and the District Court Civil Procedure (Fees) (Amendment) Rules at its forthcoming meeting on 20 May, so that the Rules may be presented to this Council for negative vetting on 24 May. This will give Members an opportunity to scrutinise the Rules. It is our intention that both the Bill and the Rules should come into operation this autumn.

With these words, Madam President, I commend the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 to Members.

Thank you.

----------------------------------

Following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, in moving the committee stage amendments (Clause 1, 3, 9, 14, 20, 22, 23, 27, 30, 32, 39, 40, 41, 44)to the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 in the Legislative Council today (May 17):

Madam Chairman,

I move that Clauses 1, 3, 9, 14, 20, 22, 23, 27, 30, 32, 39, 40, 41, 44 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.

I would like to elaborate on the Administration's thinking behind certain of the proposed amendments.

Master System

One major element of the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 is to introduce a Master system into the District Court, similar to that of the High Court, to deal with less contentious interlocutory applications and cases clearly without merit in an expeditious manner. The posts of Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the District Court will in future be filled by legally qualified officers (to be called Masters) to tie in with the more formalised civil procedural framework to be put in place in the District Court to deal with cases of much larger claim amounts. We therefore propose to amend Clause 9 to provide for the Master system, and to set out clearly the jurisdiction, powers and duties of Masters.

Agreements as to jurisdiction

On the basis of the recommendation of the then Kempster Working Party, it was originally proposed in new section 39 under Clause 22 of the Bill that the District Court should have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or proceeding with regard to the monetary limits specified, if all parties to the action or proceeding agree for the District Court to have jurisdiction by way of memorandum signed by them or their legal representatives. The objective was to allow a greater flow of cases from the Court of First Instance to the District Court. It should be noted that under the proposed arrangement, the District Court would retain the final decision as to whether to accept jurisdiction under such circumstances, having regard to the importance and complexity of the case in question.

The Bills Committee was however of the view that the proposed arrangement would amount to allowing the District Court to confer upon itself unlimited jurisdiction with the agreement of the relevant parties. The Administration has reconsidered the issue and agrees that it might not be appropriate for the District Court, which is a court with limited jurisdiction, to confer upon itself jurisdiction beyond the statutory limits. Taking into account the fact that the objective of encouraging a greater flow of civil cases into the District Court would be achieved by the proposed jurisdictional limits, the Administration agrees to delete the proposed new section 39 and the reference to this section in proposed new sections 40 and 42 in the Bill.

Following the rationale of deleting proposed section 39, we consider it inappropriate to restrict the discretion of the Court of First Instance, which is a court of unlimited jurisdiction, to dispose of cases which are within its jurisdiction, but fall outside the jurisdiction of the District Court. We therefore propose to delete proposed new section 44A(3) and, separately, substitute a provision to the effect that upon a transfer under proposed section 44A(1), the District Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all or part of an action or proceeding, including a counterclaim, so transferred notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary. The additional provision is to put beyond doubt the District Court's power to hear such actions.

Procedure where proceedings beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court are commenced in the Court

In the existing District Court Ordinance, there are two alternatives to deal with a counterclaim which exceeds the jurisdiction of the District Court. First, any party can apply to the Court of First Instance for the counterclaim to be transferred from the District Court to the Court of First Instance. Second, upon a report made by a District Judge, the judge of the Court of First Instance may transfer the whole action to the Court of First Instance; direct the whole action to remain in the District Court; or transfer the counterclaim to the Court of First Instance, leaving the rest of the action in the District Court. There is also a provision to cater for the situation where there is no application by any party and no report from a District Judge.

The Bills Committee has expressed concern that there is no provision under the Bill to enable the whole action to remain with the District Court where only the counterclaim is outside the District Court's jurisdiction.

The Administration has noted the Bills Committee's concern and agrees to amend section 42 under Clause 22 to retain the arrangement provided for counterclaims in the existing District Court Ordinance. The Court of First Instance would retain the power to order that the whole of the action or proceeding should remain with the District Court, if it is the view of the Court of First Instance that, by reason of the nature of the claim or issues involved or the relief sought, the case ought to remain with the District Court, despite the fact that the counterclaim exceeds the jurisdiction of the District Court.

Appeal to Court of Appeal

Under section 63 of the existing District Court Ordinance, appeals against decisions of District Judges may be made to the Court of Appeal with leave from either a District Judge or the Court of Appeal. Under the proposed new section 63, appeals against decisions of the District Court Registrar and judges can be made to the Court of Appeal.

The Bills Committee expressed concern over the proposed appeal mechanism. It considered that an appeal mechanism similar to that of the High Court should be adopted. Having considered the view of the Bills Committee, the Administration agrees that an appeal can, with leave, be made to the Court of Appeal from every judgment, order or decision of a District Judge in any civil cause or matter, and that an appeal from a decision of a Master lies with a District Judge. This arrangement is in line with the existing appeal mechanism in the High Court. We propose to put in place such an arrangement through amending the proposed section 63 under Clause 32.

The rest of the amendments are technical in nature and mainly seek to take on board the Bills Committee's suggested improvements on the District Court (Amendment) Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

--------------------------------------

Following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, in moving the committee stage amendment (to move the second reading of the new Clause 9A) to the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 in the Legislative Council today (May 17):

Madam Chairman,

I move that the proposed new clause 9A be read the second time, as set out in the paper circulated to Members.

The proposed new Clause 9A seeks to add sections 14A, 14B and 14C to the District Court Ordinance. It provides for the appointment mechanism of "temporary deputy registrar" and "temporary assistant registrar", which is in line with the arrangement for the temporary appointment of judges and judicial officers adopted at other levels of courts, and puts it beyond doubt that a temporary deputy registrar and a temporary assistant registrar have the same powers as the deputy registrar and assistant registrar respectively.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

-----------------------------

Following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, in moving the committee stage amendment (to add new Clause 9A) to the District Court (Amendment)Bill 1999 in the Legislative Council today (May 17):

Madam Chairman,

I move that the new clause 9A be added to the Bill.

--------------------------------

Following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, in moving the committee stage amendment (Schedules 1 and 2)to the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 in the Legislative Council today (May 17):

Madam Chairman,

I move that Schedules 1 and 2 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.

This amendment seeks to amend the Chinese nomenclature of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar in the District Court Ordinance, its subsidiary legislation and other enactments where they appear to reflect their status as judicial officer following the introduction of Master system in the District Court.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

-----------------------------

Following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, in moving the third reading of the District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 in the Legislative Council today (May 17):

Madam President,

The District Court (Amendment) Bill 1999 has passed through the Committee stage with amendments. I move that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.

End/Wednesday, May 17, 2000

NNNN