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

The following are the remarks (English only) by the Acting Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr Michael Suen, in response to the Members' view on the amendment of the Rules of the District Court in the Legislative Council today (June 22):

Madam President,

I would like to thank the Honourable Margaret Ng for the views she has raised.

The aim of the proposed empowerment of the Court to order interim assessment and payment of costs forthwith without taxation is to discourage frivolous interlocutory applications without the risk of conducting a mini-taxation and hence incurring further expense and delay. The proposed power can also be used effectively by the Court to redress the balance between parties where one party may be disadvantaged by having to pay his own lawyer heavy fees caused by unnecessary interlocutory applications brought by the other. This is of particular importance to a litigant who is less resourceful. He will be able to immediately recover at least part of his costs incurred for those applications.

The interim assessment and payment of costs can reduce unnecessary costs and expedite the litigation process. The proposal will be introduced to the District Court this year.

The existing District Court Civil Procedure (Costs) Rules provide that counsel's fee will not be allowed on taxation unless the judge has certified the matter to be fit for counsel. The Working Party chaired by Mr Justice Kempster (with members from the 2 legal professional bodies) recommended that the certificate requirement should be retained where the amount recovered is less than $150,000, having regard to the fact that the District Court, even after the increase in its jurisdictional limits, would still deal with smaller claims at less expense. This recommendation was accepted by the District Court Rules Committee chaired by the Chief Justice.

The Judiciary has committed to conduct a review of the jurisdictional limits of the District Court following the implementation of the District Court (Amendment) Ordinance and the Rules of the District Court for two years. The level of the threshold for the dispensation of the certificate requirement will be reviewed in that context.

Thank you. Madam President.

End/Thursday, June 22, 2000

NNNN