Following is a question by the Hon Nick Chan and a written reply by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr Chan Kwok-ki, in the Legislative Council today (May 6):

Question:

     It has been reported that the problem of long listing time in Hong Kong courts has become increasingly serious in recent years, and the time taken from the institution of legal proceedings to the commencement of court hearings was very long in many cases, leading to delays in judgments, which greatly affect the rights and interests of the parties concerned and the public's confidence in the judicial system. There are views that Hong Kong urgently needs to draw on the experience of other places to promote the modernisation of its judicial system, so as to shorten waiting times. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective (a) average, (b) median, (c) shortest and (d) longest time (i) "from the institution of legal proceedings to the handing down of judgments", (ii) "from the institution of legal proceedings to the conclusion of hearings" and (iii) "from the conclusion of hearings to the handing down of judgments" in the Family Court, the Labour Tribunal, the Small Claims Tribunal, the District Court, the High Court and the Court of Final Appeal in each of the past five years and so far this year, as well as the respective numbers of cases heard by these courts each year;

(2) of the respective numbers of cases in relevant case types (namely (i) national security and public order, (ii) serious and violent crimes, (iii) cyber and information technology crimes, (iv) corruption and duty-related crimes, (v) financial and economic crimes, (vi) intellectual property, (vii) labour and employment, (viii) minors, and (ix) protection of women, the elderly and persons with disabilities) heard each year by the courts referred to in (1), as well as the following information on these case types: the (A) average, (B) median, (C) shortest and (D) longest time (a) "from the institution of legal proceedings to the handing down of judgments", (b) "from the institution of legal proceedings to the conclusion of hearings" and (c) "from the conclusion of hearings to the handing down of judgments", in each of the past five years and so far this year;

(3) to ramp up the efficiency of case hearings, whether the authorities will draw reference from the practices of the following countries: (i) establishing a swift case hearing procedure similar to the Express Track in Singapore to shorten the time from the institution of legal proceedings to hearings; (ii) introducing a pre-hearing unified application mechanism similar to the Single Application Pending Trial mechanism in Singapore, which requires both parties to legal proceedings to consolidate their necessary applications into a single application and submit it for the court's handling; and (iii) drawing reference from the practice of the Docket System in the United States, under which an entire case is handled by a single master or judge;

(4) given the view that delays in court work are mainly attributed to the shortage of judge manpower, whether the authorities will draw reference from the experience of the United Kingdom and Ireland to promote a larger number of qualified and seasoned solicitor advocates to Senior Counsels, and include them as candidates for deputy judges; of the respective numbers of solicitors, solicitor advocates, barristers and Senior Counsels appointed as deputy judges or judges in each of the past five years and so far this year; and

(5) as it is learnt that courts at various levels currently encourage the use of alternative resolution procedures (i.e. mediation) in cases, of the respective numbers of cases handled through alternative resolution procedures by the Family Court, the Labour Tribunal, the Small Claims Tribunal, the District Court and the High Court in each of the past five years and so far this year, as well as the respective numbers of cases for which settlements were successfully reached; the respective (i) average, (ii) median, (iii) shortest and (iv) longest case handling time from the institution of legal proceedings to the reaching of settlements in such cases?

Reply:

President,

     Based on the information provided by the Judiciary, the Government's reply is as follows:

     The Judiciary is fully committed to upholding the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong through maintaining an efficient and effective judicial system. Notwithstanding that the caseload remained high in the past few years, the Judiciary managed to make pro-active and dedicated efforts to expedite court proceedings through multipronged measures on a continual basis. In overall terms, for civil cases, the majority of the cases across all court levels have been meeting the target waiting times persistently over the past few years. There have also been steady and gradual improvements in the average waiting times for criminal proceedings. There is no indication that the waiting and processing times of court cases have been increasing in recent years. The Judiciary will continue to closely monitor the situation and take appropriate measures having regard to operational needs to ensure and enhance operational efficiency of the courts. 

     The reply to individual parts of the question is set out below.

(1) and (2) The court waiting time is an important performance indicator for assessing the administrative efficiency of courts and tribunals in handling cases awaiting trials or other legal proceedings without compromising fairness in administration of justice. Specifically, for civil proceedings, the court waiting time is defined by the number of days between either the date of listing the case for trial or the date of application to fix a date and the date of trial. For criminal proceedings, the court waiting time is counted mainly from the filing of indictment or first appearance in court to the date of hearing. This is generally in line with the definitions of court waiting time in other common law jurisdictions.

     As a matter of fact, each case has to undergo a series of essential steps/stages before it could be listed for trial and then conclude. The time taken for a case to be ready for listing depends on the time required by the parties to complete these steps (Note 1). While case management measures will be implemented to shorten the time required for these steps where possible and appropriate, many of these steps involved are beyond the control of the court. Similarly, while the court would endeavour to fix the earliest available date for hearing, from operational experience, the earliest available date was not taken up by the parties on many occasions for reasons beyond the control of the court, mainly due to the unavailability of counsel or parties. As a result, the actual hearing date would have to be fixed on a later date, hence lengthening the overall time required for completion of the proceedings.

     In addition, for civil cases, parties may consider, and are encouraged to consider as appropriate, alternative disputes resolution (ADR) such as mediation to settle their disputes (details are provided in part (5) below). In view of the above, the court waiting time, instead of the time required "from the institution of legal proceedings to the handing down of judgment", is generally adopted for assessing operational efficiency of courts.

     The caseload and average waiting times for different levels of court over the past five years from 2021 to 2025 are at Annex A. For more detailed statistics, please refer to the Hong Kong Judiciary Annual Report 2025 at the following link: www.judiciary.hk/en/publications/annu_rept_2025.
 
     For civil proceedings, the target average waiting times have been achieved persistently in general. In particular, for the Court of First Instance (CFI) of the High Court (HC), the average waiting time for the civil fixture list in 2025 was 151 days, which was the lowest since 2021. For criminal proceedings, the target waiting times have been met in general except for cases in the CFI and the District Court (DC) due to the priority accorded to a considerable number of complicated 2019 anti-extradition amendment bill incidents and national security cases requiring longer trials, as well as the recent surge of cases related to money laundering and fraud in the DC.  

     In May 2022, the Judiciary issued Practice Directions (PDs) 36 and 37 with the aim of ensuring that reserved judgments for the HC, DC, Family Court (FC) and Lands Tribunal (LandsT) are handed down as expeditiously as reasonably practicable having regard to the circumstances of the case, including its nature and complexity, and other commitments of the court. Since the implementation of the relevant PDs, the vast majority (over 90 per cent) of the cumulative total of over 6 600 judgments at these levels of court were handed down within the stipulated timeframes.

     The Judiciary will continue to closely monitor the court waiting times and make on-going efforts for improvements as far as practicable.

(3) The Judiciary has put in place various listing and case management practices and procedures to ensure effective, expeditious and fair disposal of proceedings. For instance, to expedite short and simple trials, the CFI operates a Running List for civil cases with an estimated length of trial of four days or less. Cases in the list will be called up for trial as soon as a judge becomes available. In 2025, the average waiting time (from not-to-be-warned date to the hearing of the trial) for cases in the list is 26 days. In general, the court may also in an appropriate case, having regard to the nature and complexity of the dispute and other relevant circumstances, direct that the proceedings be expedited, and/or list the case for an early trial. 

     With regard to management and disposal of interlocutory applications, for cases in the general civil list in the CFI and DC, the parties are required to file and serve a timetabling questionnaire after close of pleadings, in which they must indicate whether they intend to issue any interlocutory applications, and if so what applications. This will enable the Court to give case management directions, which may include prescribing a timetable for taking out the intended interlocutory applications and the order and manner of their disposal.

     As for assigning a case to a particular judge or judicial officer, for the special lists in the CFI and DC (Note 2), a judge is assigned to be in charge of the list who will have control of the cases in the list and of the applications in the cases, and will make directions and orders regulating the conduct or trial of the cases in the list. Matrimonial cases in the CFI and the FC are generally docketed with a judge, who will have the conduct of the case until its conclusion. In the CFI, there is also in place a system for the prompt and efficient preparation for and the hearing of trials of cases where the hearing is likely to be lengthy. For a case where the trial is estimated to last for 15 days or more, a trial judge will be assigned to it at an early stage of the proceedings. A trial judge may similarly be assigned to complex cases even if the estimated length of trial is less than 15 days, if it is considered advantageous to the proper conduct of the proceedings.

     On the operational front, the Judiciary has also been taking a series of multipronged measures and initiatives to expedite court proceedings while steadfastly upholding the principles of justice. The major measures and initiatives include engaging additional judicial manpower, strengthening case management, promoting the wider use of mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution where appropriate, making greater use of technology, and enhancing court facilities.

     The Judiciary will continue to closely monitor progress and consider taking other appropriate measures having regard to operational needs, with a view to further enhancing the operational efficiency of the courts.

(4) To alleviate the shortfall in judicial manpower, in addition to proactively recruiting more Judges and Judicial Officers (JJOs), continual efforts are being made to invite legal practitioners from outside the Judiciary to serve as deputy JJOs at different levels of court so as to meet the courts' operational needs.

     The professional qualifications for appointment as JJOs at different levels of court are set out in the respective ordinances. These statutory professional qualifications are also applicable to deputy JJOs. In brief, a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a JJO (including deputy JJOs) if he/she is qualified to practise as a barrister, solicitor or advocate in a court in Hong Kong or any other common law jurisdiction, and has met the minimum years of practicing experience since becoming so qualified. The statutory minimum years of post-qualification practicing experience of a Judge of the High Court is 10 years while those of a District Judge and a Magistrate are five years. There is no statutory requirement that the person has to be a senior counsel.

     In line with the established deputy arrangements, the respective court leaders identify potential legal practitioners from outside the Judiciary and invite them to sit as deputies at different levels of court. As Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, the legal practitioners should possess adequate litigation experience in respective courts in order to perform judicial duties competently as a deputy JJO. Their litigation experience should be commensurate with the level of the court which they deputise in. Legal practitioners who meet the professional qualifications stipulated in the relevant ordinances with litigation experience and are interested in serving as deputy JJOs may nominate themselves or be recommended by others to the relevant court leaders. If the relevant court leaders deem them suitable, they may be appointed by the Chief Justice as deputy JJOs in accordance with the established mechanisms to assist in judicial work.

     As regards the professional qualifications of JJOs over the past five years, the Judiciary does not maintain statistics on deputy JJOs specifically categorised by their professional qualifications as they are appointed from time to time with different appointment periods. As at May 1, 2026, around 80 per cent and 20 per cent of the substantive JJOs at different levels of courts are professionally qualified to practice respectively as barristers (including those JJOs with professional qualification as solicitor as well) and solicitors. As for the substantive JJOs appointed through open recruitment over the past five years and up to now, 31 JJOs and three JJOs have the professional qualification of barrister and solicitor respectively; and 10 JJOs have the professional qualification of both barrister and solicitor. 

(5) Over the past years, the Judiciary has been making continual efforts in promoting the wider use of mediation at different levels of court to facilitate resolution of disputes for court cases. Apart from saving the time and costs of litigants, mediation also benefits the court in reducing the length and number of trials, bringing about consequential savings on judicial resources otherwise required to handle the cases. Through promulgation of a series of PDs (Note 3), mediation has become an integral part of active case management to assist the court in discharging its judicial duty by encouraging parties to use mediation as an ADR procedure.

     While mediation is to be conducted on an entirely voluntary basis, according to the relevant PDs, parties have a positive duty to consider the use of mediation as ADR at the relevant levels of court, and the legal representatives must certify that they have duly explained and advised their clients on the use of mediation, and that failure to mediate upon a request by the opposite party without reasonable explanation may attract adverse costs order, i.e. the winning party not being awarded its costs from the losing party. In 2025, more than half of the mediated cases referred by the Judiciary resulted in full or partial settlement. The use of mediation has proved to be effective in reducing the length and number of the relevant trials, bringing about consequential savings on judicial resources otherwise required to handle the cases in court.

     It should be noted that the majority of cases (over 80 per cent on average) brought before the Small Claims Tribunal, the LandsT and the Labour Tribunal are disposed of without trial through settlement arrangements facilitated by adjudicators/presiding officers or designated court support staff as appropriate. The cases referred to mediation for settlement form only a small portion of these cases. As for the FC, during the past few years, among some 20 000 cases received each year, over 12 000 cases (60 per cent) do not involve disputes or relief claims and need not be referred to mediation. Only a small portion of the remaining around 7 500 (40 per cent) cases involving disputes or relief claims are referred to mediation. Relevant statistics on mediation cases and settlement rates over the past five years from 2021 to 2025 are at Annex B.

      The above information only covers those cases where the use of mediation and/or mediation service have been reported to and/or referred by the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not maintain statistics on the processing time of these cases or on the mediation service or other forms of ADR privately engaged by parties to the proceedings as enquired in the question.

Note 1: For civil cases, these steps include identifying the real issues of the civil action, preparing, filing and serving timetabling and listing questionnaires, attending case management hearings, exchanging pleadings, exchanging witness statement and expert evidence. For criminal cases, these steps include investigation and collection of evidence by law enforcement agencies, defendants' application for legal aid or arrangement for private legal representatives, obtaining evidence from the prosecution, trial preparation by parties, handling case management issues.

Note 2: In the CFI, there are at present the Admiralty List, Commercial List, Bankruptcy and Winding-up List, Constitutional and Administrative Law List, Construction and Arbitration List, Family Law List, Intellectual Property List, Personal Injuries List and Probate List. In the DC, there are at present the Employees' Compensation List, Personal Injuries List and Equal Opportunities List.

Note 3:  PDs include: PD 31 Mediation; PD 15.10 Family Mediation; PD 6.1 Construction and Arbitration List; PD 3.3 Voluntary Mediation in Petitions Presented under Section 724 of the Companies Ordinance, Cap. 622, Section 177(1)(f) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance Cap. 32; PD 18.1 Personal Injuries List; PD 18.2 Employees' Compensation List; President's Direction LTPD: BM No. 1/2009: Case Management and Mediation for Building Management Cases; President's Direction LTPD: CS No.1/2011 Mediation for Compulsory Sale Cases Under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance (Cap. 545); and PD 20.2 Probate and Administration of Estate Proceedings.

Ends/Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Issued at HKT 18:57

NNNN