Civil Justice Reform has been brought into effect by a series of amendments to the existing rules. These amendments may generally be classified as major amendments, which primarily bring the reforms into effect, and minor amendments, which arise as necessary, natural and logical consequences of the major amendments. These major and minor amendments are laid out below.

* denotes new addition to the Rules of the High Court

Commencement and Transitional

Under rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2008 (LN 152 of 2008), the amendments to the Rules of the High Court come into operation on 2 April 2009 (Civil Justice (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 2008). The transitional provisions generally provide for the continued application of the old rules to actions taken prior to the commencement of the (Amendment) Rules 2008.

Underlying Objectives and General Case Management

The Civil Justice Reforms introduce into the rules of civil procedure a set of underlying objectives in Order 1A, which should be given effect in the exercise and interpretation of the rules. The use of the word underlying is deliberate, and marks an important departure from the overriding objective approach found in the English CPR; arguably, the only overriding objective in Hong Kong remains the just resolution of disputes in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties. Caution must thus be exercised in applying English authorities on UK equivalent provisions when interpreting the rules.

The main change that has occurred as a result of the introduction of underlying objectives to the rules is the expanded general case management powers under Order 1B, backed by the court's powers against non-compliance in Order 2, and powers to limit the time to be taken at trial under Order 35.

For further in respect of case management, see case management timetabling and milestones (Order 25) below.

Commencing Proceedings

The modes of commencing proceedings have now been reduced to two. This change was primarily effected by amending Order 5 rule 1. Under the new rules, writs are to be used where substantial factual disputes are likely to arise, and originating summons are to be used where questions of law involving no or little factual investigation are brought before the court.

As a result of the change made to Order 5 rule 1 references to originating motions and petitions have generally been eliminated from the Orders below, except where other originating processes are mandated by legislation (see Orders 8 and 9). Two other amendments of note arise out of this change. Under Order 2 rule 1(3), proceedings shall not be set aside on the basis that they were begun by the incorrect form of originating process, but the court may instead give directions for the continuation of proceedings in an appropriate manner, and under Order 28 rule 3A, all originating summons are heard in open court unless the court otherwise directs.

Dispute as to Jurisdiction

Order 12 has now been amended to include applications for the court to decline jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim, and to grant discretionary stays of action resulting in a change to Order 18 in respect of service of defence.

Default Judgments and Admissions

A new Order 13A has been added for the purposes of making admissions to money claims so as to facilitate settlement. This enables proposals to be made in respect of payment terms, ie the time in which payment is made or instalment payments, and results in an addition to Order 6 for indorsing a claim under Order 13A.

Pleadings

Amendments have been made to Order 18 so that pleadings now contain concise and clear statements as to the true nature of the case and the facts relied upon. Defences must now be pleaded substantively, and joinder of issue now operates as a non-admission rather than denial.

The period for service of defence, reply to defence or defence to counterclaim is now extended to 28 days, and the close of pleadings occurs at the expiry of 28 days. Inconsistent or alternative allegations are also permitted in pleadings so long as there are reasonable grounds for such pleadings.

Parties are not required to particularise or amend pleadings unless the court is of the opinion that amendment is necessary for the fair disposal of the matter or saving costs. This has resulted in further changes to Order 20 to reflect the purposes for making amendments to pleadings, and to deal with failures to amend.

For further in respect of pleadings, see statements of truth (Order 41A) below.

Sanctioned Offers and Payments

A system of court-sanctioned offers and sanctioned payments has been introduced under the new Order 22, with supplemental provisions found in Order 22A and a parallel system for costs introduced in the new Order 62A. As a result of the Order 22, amendments have been made to the provisions below replacing references to payments into court with references to the new system of sanctioned offers and sanctioned payments.

Discovery

Pre-action discovery under the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) has been extended from death and personal injuries claims to all civil claims resulting in changes to the Rules to set out the detailed procedures for such discovery.

Case Management Timetabling and Milestones

The court's powers of case management have been enhanced by the amendments to Order 25, which gives it greater control over the progress of actions by setting firm timetables for cases at an early stage. These timetables include milestone dates for major steps in the proceedings, which can only be altered in exceptional circumstances. As a result references to summons for directions throughout the Rules have been replaced with references to case management summons, and to the new procedure and timetables mechanisms thereunder.

Interim Remedies and Mareva Injunctions in Aid of Proceedings Outside Hong Kong

The expansion of the court's power under s 21M of the High Court Ordinance to act in support of foreign actions have led to additional provisions being set out in the Rules for procedures under those powers. As a result, the circumstances in which service of writ out of jurisdiction is permissible under Order 11 has been expanded.

Parallel provisions have been made in respect of arbitration proceedings.

Interlocutory Applications

To reduce the volume of interlocutory applications that are of dubious or limited value, changes have been made to Order 32 to make the court's orders self-executing (ie setting out the relevant sanction for non-compliance without having to return to court for enforcement), to deal with such orders on paper as far as possible, and to penalise unwarranted applications with costs and other sanctions.

Vexatious Litigants

The court's powers and procedures to deal with vexatious litigants are now dealt with in greater detail under the amended s 27 of the High Court Ordinance and the new Order 32A. A vexatious litigant order be made not only on the application of the Secretary for Justice, but also on the application of an 'affected person'. Application by vexatious litigants to institute or continue proceedings are now governed by the new s 27A, and is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Registrar of the High Court and other masters. For the purposes of dealing with vexatious litigants, the court may also strike out pleadings or indorsements of its own motion under Order 18.

Witness Statements and Evidence

Witnesses may now amplify and supplement their witness statements. 

Expert evidence

For the purposes of dealing with a lack of impartiality of independence on the part of expert witnesses, expert witnesses are now required to declare that their duties to the court override obligations to those instructing or paying them, to acknowledge that duty in their reports and to agree to be bound by the code of conduct for witnesses. The court may also appoint a single joint expert.

 Statements of Truth

In order to confirm the proper function of pleadings (see above), pleadings must now be verified by a statement of truth. The new Order 41A introduces this requirement, identifying the persons who may sign a statement of truth, and setting out the effect of a statement of truth and the consequences for failing to verify a document for which a statement of truth is required. As a result of the introduction of statements of truth to the rules, amendments are made for their use in pleadings, when making amendments, witness statements and expert witness statements.

 Judicial Review

The amendments to Order 53 define the scope of judicial review proceedings more clearly, provide that persons who wish to be heard in support of an application for judicial review may also be heard, allow any person to apply for leave to file evidence or make representations at a hearing, and makes other changes in respect of the procedure for judicial review.

Leave to Appeal

The amendments made in relation to leave to appeal span Orders 58 and 59. Under the new Order 58, which sets out the appeal as of right of decisions made by masters, two changes to rule 1 now make it clear that firstly no new evidence can be admitted on appeal unless exceptional circumstances justify its admission and that secondly the power to hear appeals extends to decisions reached without an oral hearing.

In relation to appeals to the Court of Appeal, a new s 14AA has been added to the High Court Ordinance. This now sets out the applications for which leave to appeal is as of right as listed in Order 59 rule 21(1). Applications for leave to appeal are governed by rules 2A-2C which set out the steps needed for an application for leave to appeal.

 Appeals

Various substantial amendments have been made to Order 59 which regulates appeals to the Court of Appeal. The key change is set out in Order 59 rule 14 which deals with interlocutory applications to the Court of Appeal. A new regime is set out by the rule which now allows such applications to be determined by only a single Justice of Appeal and with or without an oral hearing.

Two other major changes are the confirmation that Order 59 applies to appeals from the District Court and the extension of the time within which a notice of appeal must be filed to 28 days in most instances. Amendments have also been made in relation to Orders 60A and 61 to extend the time within which a notice of appeal must be filed to 28 days to harmonise the different appeal regimes.

General Approach to Inter-Party Costs

The principle that costs should normally follow the event is now merely an option in respect of interlocutory applications. The court will now take into account the underlying objectives as well as other matters in the exercise of its discretion in respect of costs.

Costs Against Non-Party

Wasted Costs

The wasted costs regime has now been expanded to cover legal representatives, and to allow the court to make such orders on its own motion. Wasted costs will be dealt with by a two-stage procedure, and should not be used to threaten the other side's legal representatives.

Summary Assessment of Costs

Summary assessment is aimed at discouraging unwarranted interlocutory applications by allowing the court to make summary assessment when disposing of an interlocutory application, to regulate the time for complying with the summary assessment, and to generally deal with the question of when to tax costs.

Costs-Only Proceedings

Costs-only proceedings have been introduced to the High Court Ordinance to enable parties who have settled their substantive dispute but are at odds as to costs to have their costs taxed. This has led to necessary amendments in respect of service.

Taxing the Other Side's Costs

Counsel's fees are now at the discretion of the taxing master. Provisional taxation by Chief Judicial Clerks is now permitted for bills of costs not exceeding $200,000. Provisional taxation may be carried out on paper, unless a dissatisfied party requires an oral hearing.

Taxing masters may also give certain directions and make orders in respect of costs thrown away by adjournment. Generally, the party entitled to payment of costs is also entitled to costs on taxation, but the court may disallow all or part of the costs and order a party to pay costs he has caused the other party to incur as a result of misconduct. As a result of these changes to procedure, two of the old rules under Order 62 have been repealed entirely.

More time is now allowed for settlement in respect of costs and for the commencement of taxation proceedings. Taxing masters may now penalise delays in commencing or proceeding with taxation, and a time limit is now imposed, after which taxation may not be commenced. At the conclusion of taxation, the taxing master shall issue a final certificate, after which taxing fees may be reimbursed, and the master is empowered to set aside his own decision. A taxing master's decision may not be reviewed by a judge unless it has already been reviewed by the taxing master. The minor amendments that follow from these changes correct the references in the rules of Order 62 to these provisions.

Antonio M Da Roza
Barrister-at-Law
Research Fellow, Faculty of Law
The University of Hong Kong
Mohammed Talib
Trainee Solicitor
Pinsent Masons

Antonio M Da Roza
Barrister-at-Law
Research Fellow, Faculty of Law
The University of Hong Kong
Mohammed Talib
Trainee Solicitor
Pinsent Masons

民事司法制度改革一瞥 

民事司法制度改革乃通過對一系列現行規則的修訂而實行。該等修訂一般可以歸類為屬於重大修訂（即是使改革生效的主要修訂）及次要修訂（即是隨著重大修訂而產生的必然、正常和合理的後果）。現將這些重大和次要修訂分述如下。

* 表示《高等法院規則》的新增條文

開展及過渡

根據《2008年高等法院規則（修訂）規則》(LN 152 of 2008)第1條，對《高等法院規則》的修訂於2009年4月2日生效（《2008年民事司法制度（雜項修訂）條例》）。根據過渡性條文的規定，於2008年（修訂）規則開始生效前已進行的訴訟，繼續適用舊有的條文。

基本目標和一般案件管理

民事司法制度改革的實施，要求將一系列基本目標載入Order 1A的民事訴訟程序規則中，而在行使和解釋該等規則時，此等基本目標將會產生效力。使用基本一詞是刻意的，用意是使它與英國《民事訴訟程序規則》中的首要目標模式有所區別；在香港，唯一的首要目標是根據訴訟各方的實質權利來公平地解決爭議。因此，當我們試圖運用英國的相應條文來解釋有關規則時必須格外小心。

因著該等規則的基本目標之訂立，主要的變動是Order 1B下的一般案件管理權力的擴大，而Order 2則賦予法院權力針對不遵規的行為，Order 35則賦權法院對審訊時間作出限制。
有關對案件管理的進一步論述，請參閱下文的案件管理時間表及進度指標(Order 25) 。

開展法律程序

現時開展法律程序的方式已減至兩種。這一改變，主要是透過對Order 5 rule 1的修訂而產生作用。在新規則下，假如有關的糾紛很可能涉及實質性的事實爭議，該等案件將會藉令狀開展；假如案件所涉及的是法律性問題，而沒有涉及或只是涉及很少對事實的調查，則將會藉原訴傳票開展。

由於Order 5 rule 1的修訂，規則中提述原訴動議和呈請的地方，已經自下述的命令中移除，但經立法而指令的其他原訴程序則除外（參見Order 8及9）。根據Order 2 rule 1(3)，法律程序不能因為是以不正確的原訴程序開展而被撤銷，但法庭可指示以合適的方式繼續進行有關的法律程序，而根據Order 28 rule 3A，除非法庭另有指示，否則所有原訴傳票均必須以公開聆訊方式進行。

司法管轄權的爭議

Order 12現時已被修訂，包括可要求法庭拒絕就原告人的申索行使司法管轄權，以及要求法庭酌情批准將訴訟擱置（Order 18有關抗辯書送達的修訂）。

失責判決與承認

Order 13A是一項新訂立的規定，並可藉此就款項申索作出承認，從而促進和解。此舉可促使有關的訴訟方就還款條件提出建議（即是關於還款時間或分期付款），並促使Order 6增加了批註Order 13A下的申索的規定。

狀書

Order 18作出了修訂，使狀書在現時只能載有關於案件真正性質的簡明扼要陳述，以及其所依據的事實。所提出的抗辯，現時必須具有實質，而爭論點的提出，現時是視作不承認而非視作否認。

抗辯書、對抗辯書的答覆或是對反申索的抗辯等，其送達期限現時已延長至28天，而狀書的提交期限於28天屆滿後結束。狀書內可提出互有矛盾或互為替代的指稱，但須具有合理的理由證明這些指稱屬實。

各與訟方不須澄清或修訂狀書，除非法庭認為此舉對於公平處理訟案或節省訟費是必須的。這促使Order 20被進一步修訂，以反映修訂狀書之目的，並處理未能進行修訂的事宜。
關於狀書的進一步論述，請參閱下述的事實確認書(Order 41A)一節。

附帶條款的和解提議及付款安排

在新制定的Order 22下，訂立了經法庭認可的附帶條款的和解提議及付款安排，而Order 22A中載有補充性條文，新制訂的Order 62A則訂立了訟費方面的並行制度。基於Order 22的規定，下列的條文亦作出了修訂，並以新訂立的附帶條款的和解提議及付款安排制度，取代對繳存款項於法院的提述。

文件透露

《高等法院條例》（第 4 章）下的訴訟前文件透露，已自死亡和人身傷害申索，伸延至所有民事申索，這促使對有關規則進行相應修改，以述明該文件透露之詳細程序。

案件管理時間表及進度指標

法庭對案件管理的權力藉對Order 25的修訂而有所加強，使它能於較早階段為案件設定牢固的時間表，從而對訴訟的進度具有更大的控制權力。這些時間表，包括涉及法律程序的重要步驟的進度指標日期，並只可以在例外的情況下作出修改。因此，規則中對於「要求作指示的傳票」之提述，已經由案件管理傳票及之下的新程序和時間表機制所取代。

中期補救與有助香港以外法律程序進行的資產凍結令

擴大法庭根據《高等法院條例》第21M條行事以支持進行外地訴訟的權力，促使須在規則中新增涉及該等權力下之程序的條文。根據Order11批准於司法區以外送達令狀的情況因此已經擴大。

有關仲裁程序的並行條文已經制定。

非正審申請

為了減少可疑的或價值有限的非正審申請數目，Order 32已經作出修訂，使法庭的命令能夠自我執行（即是對於不遵規的情況列出相關的懲處，而不須要求法庭實施強制執行），以盡快處理該等書面命令，並以訟費和其他懲罰方式懲處沒有根據的申請。

無理纏擾的訴訟人

法庭處理無理纏擾的訴訟人的權力和程序，現時於經修訂的《高等法院條例》第27條及新制訂的Order 32A下有更詳盡的規定。針對無理纏擾的訴訟人而頒發的命令，除了是由律政司司長提出申請外，亦可以由「受影響人士」提出申請而頒發。由無理纏擾的訴訟人提出申請而提起或持續的法律程序，由新制定的第27A條所管限，並處於高等法院司法常務官及其他聆案官的管轄權力範圍以外。為了處理涉及無理纏擾訴訟人的案件，法庭亦可以自行根據Order 18將狀書或批註剔除。

證人陳述書及證供

證人現時可以擴大及補充其證人陳述書。

專家證據

為了使專家證人能夠不偏不倚地作供，專家證人現時需要聲明其對法庭的職責凌駕該等委托或付款給他們的人士，在他們的報告中承認該等責任，並同意受證人行為守則所約束。
法庭亦可以委任一名同一專家。

事實確認書

為了確認狀書（見上文）所具備的恰當功能，現時狀書必須經過事實確認書的核實。新制定的Order 41A訂立了這一項規定，述明有哪些人士可以簽署事實確認書，並指出事實確認書的效用，以及未能核實該等需要提供事實確認書的文件的後果。為了在規則內加入事實確認書的規定，故須就其在狀書（於作出修訂時）、證人陳述書及專家證人陳述書中的使用作出修訂。

司法覆核

Order 53的修訂更清晰地界定司法覆核法律程序的範圍，讓該等希望在庭上陳詞以支持其司法覆核申請的人士獲得聆訊機會，並容許任何申請許可的人士在聆訊中提出證據或作出陳述，及就司法覆核程序作出其他修改。

上訴許可

與上訴許可有關的修訂載於Order 58及59中。在新制定的Order 58下（關於對聆案官作出的裁決提出上訴的當然權利)，對規則1作出的修改，現在清楚述明：第一，在上訴程序中不能提出新的證據，除非存在例外情況支持此舉；第二，聆聽上訴的權力伸延至在沒有進行口頭聆訊的情況下所作出的裁決。

就向上訴法庭提出上訴而言，一項新制定的第14AA條被加進《高等法院條例》中。這一條文現時述明上訴許可申請乃一項當然權利，如Order 59 rule 21(1) 所述明般。上訴許可申請由第2A-2C條規則所管限，當中述明上訴許可申請的所須步驟。

上訴

有關向上訴法庭提出上訴的Order 59已進行了各項實質性的修訂，主要的修改載於Order 59 rule 14中，並涉及向上訴法庭提出非正審申請。該項規則訂立了一個新的制度，即是現時容許該等申請由一位上訴法庭法官作出裁定，並可以進行或不進行口頭聆訊。

其他兩項重大修改是確認Order 59可適用於區域法院的上訴，以及延長提交上訴通知的期限至28天（在大多數情況下）。Orders 60A及61亦作出了修訂，將提交上訴通知的期限延長至28天，以協調各個不同的上訴制度。

訴訟各方之間訟費的一般處理方法

訟費一般應視乎訴訟結果而定的原則，現時只是非正審申請的其中一個選項。法庭現時就訟費行使其酌情決定權時，會同時考慮基本目標以及其他事宜。

針對非與訟方的訟費

虛耗訟費

虛耗訟費制度現時擴大至涵蓋法律代表，並容許法庭自行作出該等命令。虛耗訟費將藉一個兩階段的程序來處理，並不得用來威脅另一方的法律代表。

以簡易程序評定訟費

以簡易程序評定訟費的目的，是透過容許法庭在處理非正審申請時作出以簡易程序進行的訟費評定，並控制時間以符合以簡易程序進行訟費評定，以及處理何時應進行訟費評定的問題，從而阻攔該等沒有根據的非正審申請。

只處理訟費的法律程序

《高等法院條例》已訂立了只處理訟費的法律程序，讓已經就實質爭議進行和解但在訟費方面仍存在爭拗的訴訟各方進行訟費評定。這促使在送達方面須進行必要的修訂。

評定對方的訟費

大律師的費用現時是由訟費評定官來酌情決定。金額不超過20萬元的訟費單，現時可以由總司法書記進行暫定訟費評定。暫定訟費評定可根據呈交的文件進行，除非不滿意的一方要求進行口頭聆訊。

訟費評定官亦可以作出若干指示，並就因押後聆訊而招致的訟費頒發命令。一般而言，獲判給訟費的一方，亦有權獲得訟費評定的訟費，但法庭可下令不判給所有或部分訟費，並下令一方須支付另一方因他的不當行為所招致的訟費。因著這些程序修改，Order 62下的兩項舊規則已被完全廢除。

現時亦容許給予更多時間來就訟費問題進行和解，以及開展訟費評定程序。訟費評定官現時可以對開展或進行訟費評定構成耽延的行為作出懲罰，並施加時間限制，於該時間以後便不得開展訟費評定程序。當訟費評定終結後，訟費評定官會發出一份最終證明書，之後可以獲得償付訟費評定費用，而聆案官有權撤銷自己所作出的裁決。法官不能覆核訟費評定官的裁決，除非已經由該名訟費評定官進行了覆核。隨著這些修改而進行的次要修訂，修正了Order 62的規則中對該等條文的提述。

Antonio M Da Roza
Barrister-at-Law
Research Fellow, Faculty of Law
The University of Hong Kong
Mohammed Talib
Trainee Solicitor
Pinsent Masons

Antonio M Da Roza
Barrister-at-Law
Research Fellow, Faculty of Law
The University of Hong Kong
Mohammed Talib
Trainee Solicitor
Pinsent Masons