In February 2000, a Working Party was appointed by the Chief Justice of Hong Kong with the following mandate:

"To review the civil rules and procedures of the High Court and to recommend changes thereto with a view to ensuring and improving access to justice at reasonable cost and speed."

The Civil Justice Reform (CJR) legislation implements changes to the existing court rules and procedures. The aim is to improve the cost-effectiveness of the Hong Kong system of civil procedure, reduce its complexity and reduce the delays encountered in litigation, always subject to the fundamental requirements of procedural and substantive justice.

The key feature of CJR is the court's duty to take a proactive approach in case management. This is in contrast to the existing party-driven litigation culture.

Under the new regime, the court is given wider jurisdiction and more powers to ensure that parties are better prepared at an earlier stage of the litigation, adhere strictly to proceeding timetables, avoid applications and steps which are unnecessary, wasteful or unmerited and give more serious consideration to settlement of a dispute at an early stage.
This article will discuss the case management powers granted to the court and, in particular, the importance of the Case Management Conference (CMC).

Order 1A - Objectives

Before discussing the court's role in case management, it is important to understand the newly-stated 啐nderlying objectives' of the Rules of the High Court (RHC), set out in Order 1A.

Order 1A is an entirely new Order. It should be read in conjunction with Order 1B - Case Management Powers, another entirely new Order, which is discussed below. Order 1A has been described as encapsulating the rationale behind CJR and, for that reason, possibly the single most important reform to the RHC. Order 1A introduces and signals a radical change in thinking and attitude to the management of court business on the part of lawyers and judges. The intention is to have much more active case management from an early stage, with the pace of proceedings to be driven more by judges rather than dictated by the parties. Moreover, by the court applying the underlying objectives and actively managing cases, it is hoped that there will be reduction in delays in getting to trial, as well as the elimination of unnecessary interlocutory applications.

The six underlying objectives set out in Order 1A rule 1 are as follows:

"(a) to increase the cost-effectiveness of any practice and procedure to be followed in relation to proceedings before the Court;
(b) to ensure that a case is dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable;
(c) to promote a sense of reasonable proportion and procedural economy in the conduct of proceedings;
(d) to ensure fairness between the parties;
(e) to facilitate the settlement of disputes; and
(f) to ensure that the resources of the Court are distributed fairly."

Order 1A rule 2 provides that the court shall seek to give effect to the underlying objectives when it exercises any of its powers or interprets any of the RHC or practice directions. Application of the underlying objectives will require a careful balance between, for example, the speedy disposal of a case through active case management and the just resolution of a dispute. This balance is explicitly recognised by Order 1A rule 2(2), which provides:

"In giving effect to the underlying objectives ... the Court shall always recognize that the primary aim in exercising the powers of the Court is to secure the just resolution of disputes in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties."

The parties to any proceedings and their legal representatives also are under a duty to assist the court to further the underlying objectives. This duty to assist the court is, for the first time, expressly acknowledged by Order 1A rule 3. Going forward, therefore, it is clear that the judiciary will expect more from legal practitioners in order to discharge its own duty to uphold the underlying objectives. As is discussed in more detail below, practitioners will be expected to have an in-depth knowledge of their cases (including both factual and legal issues) at a far earlier stage so as to be able, in turn, to educate the court on the key issues at stake.

Finally, Order 1A rule 4(1) states that the court shall further the underlying objectives by actively managing cases. Order 1A rule 4(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of the case management tools at the disposal of judges. This includes: (b) identifying the issues at an early stage; (c) deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others; (d) deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved; (e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate, and facilitating the use of such procedure; (g) fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case; and (l) giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently.

Order 1B - Case Management Powers

Order 1B emphasises the philosophy that the proceedings are to be court driven rather than party driven. Order 1B complements Order 1A by giving specific examples of the court's case management powers. In light of the underlying objectives, it will be incumbent on the court to consider using these powers in most cases. The court's general powers of case management are listed in Order 1B rule 1(2), and include the power: (b) to adjourn or bring forward a hearing; (c) to require a party or party's legal representative to attend court; (h) to direct a separate trial of any issue; as well as (j) to exclude an issue from consideration.

The court also has the power to make an order of its own motion in the absence of any application by the parties: Order 1B rule 2.

Order 25 - Case Management Summons and Conference

Order 1B is supplemented by a new Order 25, entitled 'Case Management and Conference'. The old Order 25, entitled 'Summons for Directions', has been substantially re-written to focus on case management. The new Order 25 represents two of the most important facets of CJR: the CMC and the concept of 'milestone dates'. In this respect, the concept of case management by the court is not novel. Nonetheless, as is demonstrated by Orders 1A and 1B discussed above, one of the principal aims of CJR is greater involvement by the judge or master in control of the case, by getting that case ready for trial. In this respect, the judge or master must actively consider how his case management powers may be used to achieve the underlying objectives set out in Order 1A.

Within 28 days after close of pleadings, each party must complete a questionnaire providing information mapping out the intended progress of their action. As far as possible, the parties are to agree on the directions they wish the court to make. They should also set out a timetable for the action up to trial. To the extent of any agreement, the parties may file a consent summons: Order 25 rule 1(1) and (1A).

To the extent that there is no agreement, the parties should each set out their proposed directions and the plaintiff should take out a case management summons. Where the plaintiff fails to do so, the defendant may issue a case management summons instead: Order 25 rule 1(1B) and (4).

Upon receipt of the questionnaires, a judge will have two options. First, without further hearing make an order nisi setting out all necessary directions to trial. In the absence of application to the contrary, the order nisi will become absolute within 14 days: Order 25 rule 1A(4)-(6). Second, fix a CMC.

The CMC will be pivotal in the court proceedings. In appropriate cases, there may be several CMCs.

At the CMC the court should give directions leading up to the trial of the action, including fixing a date for the pre-trial review (PTR) and a trial date or period in which the trial is to take place: Order 25 rule 1A(2); see also Order 25 rule 1A(1) and (3).

The timetable determined by the court will identify 'milestone dates' and 'non-milestone dates'. Milestone dates are any days fixed for hearing a further CMC, a PTR or the trial. All other dates are non-milestone dates. The significance of milestone dates is discussed below.

The timetabling made at the CMC assumes that the parties have informed the court of all issues and anticipated interlocutory steps.

As mentioned above, the parties' legal representatives must be up to speed with all aspects of the case, and advanced in terms of case preparation, at a much earlier stage than is currently the position. The new Practice Direction 5.2 (Case Management) (PD 5.2) states this clearly at paragraphs 4 and 46:

"(4) It is important for parties and their legal advisers to appreciate that efficient and cost effective resolution of disputes cannot be achieved without due diligence and cooperation on their part. The Courts will be proactive in case management in accordance with the underlying objectives set out in Order 1A; ...

(46) A legal representative who attends a hearing should be the person responsible for the case and must in any event be familiar with it, be able to provide the Court with the information it is likely to need to make its decisions about case management, and having [sic] sufficient authority to deal with any issues that are likely to arise."

In light of this latter requirement, practitioners must have thought through in advance all issues that might arise for discussion and determination at the CMC and should also consider having a senior client representative attend the CMC.

The parties (and their legal representatives) will, for example, be expected to tell the court that discovery and pleadings are complete, the extent of the remaining interlocutory activity, and provide an indication of the extent and level of costs. Importantly, wasted costs orders will be imposed upon legal representatives who are not properly prepared: PD 5.2 at paragraph 48. If such lack of preparation is not the result of inadequate instructions but instead the failure of the practitioner to be fully prepared for the CMC, the practitioner will no doubt find it difficult to pass on such costs to their clients.

At the same time as the filing of the CMC questionnaire, each party will, from 1 January 2010 (when the new Practice Direction 31 on mediation comes into effect), also be required to file a Mediation Certificate. Such certificate must be signed by that party and its solicitors and confirm whether that party is willing to attempt mediation and, if not, stating their reasons. At the same time, the solicitors/legal representatives will also be required to confirm that they have explained to their client 'the availability of mediation ... and the respective costs positions of mediation as compared with the costs of the litigation.'

The parties and their legal representatives should be prepared to discuss this with the court at the CMC. If the parties have not made a genuine attempt to resolve their dispute through mediation, the court is likely, in most cases, to direct that the parties try mediation first and adjourn the proceedings for a short period to all this to take place.

Going forward, the court will no longer entertain late changes to the timetable or tactical delays, and practitioners should make sure that their clients are made aware of this. A late change in a solicitor, or a party acting in person, for example, will not be a good reason for an adjournment.

Paragraph 45 of PD 5.2 also provides that, unless otherwise directed by the court, all hearings for CMCs and PTRs before a judge should be attended by trial counsel.

In relation to the timetable fixed by the court, the parties may vary non-milestone dates by consent: Order 25 rule 1B(4). Parties should agree among themselves to non-material variations of non-milestone dates without troubling the court with argument. Where, however, a significant change to a non-milestone date is sought (which cannot be agreed between the parties), the court will only vary the date where 'sufficient grounds' have been shown: Order 25 rule 1B(6), subject always to the caveat that the court will not vary the date if such variation would make it necessary to change a trial date or trial period: Order 25 rule 1B(7). Paragraph 41 of PD 5.2 provides that an application for an extension will only be granted, if at all, on the basis of an immediate unless order prescribing a suitable sanction should there be any further non-compliance.

In all cases, the parties must keep the court informed of progress. Times for compliance should not lapse, even by consent, without a Consent Summons being filed to that effect.

A party must apply to the court to vary any of the milestone dates: Order 25 rule1B(2). Such dates cannot be varied by consent. Order 25 rule 1B(3) provides that milestone dates will only be varied in exceptional circumstances. Practitioners have been warned that most applications to change a milestone date will be refused. Paragraph 42 of PD 5.2 provides:

"Milestone dates will be immovable save in the most exceptional circumstances and for that purpose, for instance, late instructions from client, change in the team of lawyers, the absence of prejudice to the other party which cannot be compensated for by costs, will not be treated as exceptional circumstances."

If a plaintiff fails to appear at either a CMC or a PTR, the claim will be provisionally struck out; if there is no counterclaim then the action will be struck out as well. Where a defendant fails to appear at a CMC or a PTR, any counterclaim will be provisionally struck out: Order 25 rule 1C(1) and (2).

The party can apply within three months to restore the claim or counterclaim, as the case may be. Good reason must be shown and the court may impose terms for any restoration: Order 25 rule 1C(3)-(5).

In summary, the effect of the above is that parties will have to be on top of all aspects of their case at a much earlier stage. At the time of the CMC, the parties will be expected to have finalised their pleadings, completed discovery (in as economic a manner as possible - see PD 5.2 Part B) and be able to tell the court the steps that will need to be taken to progress the matter to trial. In many cases, trial counsel should appear, and have been fully briefed, so that they are able to tell the court about the case and the issues that arise for consideration. In this respect, the CMC will be, in some ways, more akin to the current PTR.

For its part, the court should have a greater understanding of the matter at a much earlier stage, which in turn will allow the court to play a much greater role in progressing the matter to trial. The parties should expect the judge or master sitting at the CMC to make full use of their powers of case management and to take a much more pro-active role in determining how the case should proceed. As stated above, this can include deciding whether any issues should be disposed of summarily, deciding in which order the issues should be tried and assisting the parties to settle their case.

Milestone dates, once fixed, are unlikely to be varied, even with the consent of both parties. If a party subsequently realises that further time is needed, this is now extremely unlikely to lead to any extension being granted by the court and the parties will be stuck with the timetable granted. Again, this will mean that the parties, their solicitors and trial counsel must be fully up to speed in respect of their case by the time of the CMC and before they agree a timetable for trial.




Kathryn Sanger
Senior Associate
Clifford Chance
kathryn.sanger@cliffordchance.com

 案件管理和「進度指標日期」

2000年2月，香港終審法院首席法官委任工作組執行下列任務：

「覆核高等法院的民事規則與程序，建議相關變更，目的是以合理的成本和速度確保並改善獲得司法服務的途徑。」

民事司法制度改革的法例實施對目前法院規則與程序的變更。其目的是在始終遵循程序與實質上的公正的基本要求前提下，改進香港民事訴訟程序制度的效益，降低其複雜性，並減少在訴訟過程中所遭遇的延誤。

民事司法制度改革的關鍵特徵在於，法院有責任在案件管理中採取積極主動的方式，這與當事人主導的現有訴訟文化形成對比。

依照新的制度，法院被授予更廣泛的司法管轄權及更多權力，以確保各方在訴訟早期階段準備得更為充分，嚴格遵守程序時間表，避免不必要、浪費及不可取的申請與步驟，更認真地考慮在早期解決爭議。

本文將討論授予法院的案件管理權，尤其是案件管理會議的重要意義。

Order 1A—目標

在討論法院在案件管理中的角色之前，必須瞭解《高等法院規則》Order 1A中最新闡述的「基本目標」。

Order 1A是一項全新的命令，應當結合Order 1B—案件管理權（另一項全新命令）加以理解，後者將在下文討論。Order 1A被描述為概括了民事司法制度改革的理據，因此可能是對《高等法院規則》最為重要的單項改革。Order 1A引入並體現出律師和法官對法院事務管理思路與態度的根本轉變。改革的意圖是從早期便進行遠更為積極的案件管理，更多地由法官而非按照當事人的意願推進法律程序。而且，通過由法院運用基本目標並積極管理案件，交付審訊的延遲將可望減少，並可消除不必要的非正審申請。

Order 1A載列了以下六項基本目標：
「(a) 提高司法程序的成本效益；
(b) 確保案件得到迅速處理；
(c) 提倡以經濟和與案情相稱為原則來提起訴訟和進行審訊；
(d) 使訴訟各方地位平等；
(e) 協助與訟人達成和解；及
(f) 確保法庭的資源得到公平分配。」

Order 1A rule 2規定，法院在行使任何權力或闡釋任何《高等法院規則》或實務指示時，必須力求令基本目標產生作用。運用基本目標就必須在諸如透過積極案件管理快速處理案件與公正解決爭議之間小心地取得平衡。Order 1A rule 2(2)明確認識到了這種平衡，並規定：

「在令致基本目標產生作用時…法院必須認識到，行使法院權力的首要目標在於依照各方的實質權利，實現爭議的公正解決。」

任何法律程序的訴訟方及其法律代表亦有責任協助法院促進基本目標的達成。Order 1A rule 3首次明確認可了這項協助法院的責任。因此，就今後而言，司法機構顯然會期待法律執業者作出更大努力，以便法院能履行自身維護基本目標的責任。正如下文所更詳細討論的，執業者將被要求在遠比以前更早的階段便深入瞭解案情（包括事實與法律問題），以便能夠反過來就關鍵爭議事項為法院提供指導。

最後，Order 1A rule 4(1)規定，法院必須積極管理案件，以促進基本目標的達成。Order 1A rule 4(2) 通過非窮盡方式羅列了法官可以運用的一系列案件管理工具，其中包括：(b) 早期識別事項；(c) 迅速確定有哪些事項需要進行全面的調查和審訊，其他事宜則以簡易的方式處理；(d) 確定解決事項的順序；(e) 鼓勵各方採用替代爭議解決程序（如果法院認為恰當），並為採用該程序提供便利；(g) 確定時間表或通過其他方式控制案件進程；(l) 發佈指示，確保案件審理能快速高效地進行。

Order 1B—案件管理權

Order 1B強調這樣一個理念：必須由法院而非當事人主導法律程序。Order 1B完善了Order 1A，通過具體的例子說明法院的案件管理權。就基本目標而言，法院有責任考慮在大多數案件中運用上述權力。法院的一般性案件管理權列述於Order 1B rule 1(2)，包括下列權力：(b) 押後或提前聆訊；(c) 要求某方或其法律代表出庭； (h) 指示對任何事項進行獨立審理；以及 (j) 排除考慮某一事項。

法院亦有權自行發出命令，而無須各方提出申請：Order 1B rule 2。

Order 25—案件管理傳召與會議

新的Order 25（標題為「案件管理和會議」）對Order 1B進行了補充。舊有的Order 25（標題為「要求作指示的傳票」）被大幅改寫，以令其著重於案件管理。新的Order 25體現出民事司法制度改革最重要的兩個方面：案件管理會議與「進度指標日期」的概念。在這方面，法院案件管理的概念並不新奇。不過，正如上述Orders 1A和1B所顯示，民事司法制度改革的主要目標之一是使得案件易於審理，從而令法官或聆案官更大程度地參與控制案件。在這方面，法官或聆案官必須積極考慮如何運用自身的案件管理權，實現Order 1A中列明的基本目標。

狀書提交期結束後28天內，各方必須完成問卷，提供相應資料，描述自身訴訟行動的預期進展。在盡可能的情況下，各方須就希望法院作出的指示達成一致。此外，各方還應當制定直至審訊的行動時間表。假如訂立協議，各方可以提交同意傳票：Order 25 rule 1(1) and (1A)。
假如並未訂立協議，各方應當設定自身提議的指示，原告人應當發出案件管理傳票。假如原告人未能如此行事，則被告人可以發出案件管理傳票：Order 25 rule 1(1B) 和(4)。

在收到問卷時，法官有兩種選擇。第一、在不進行進一步聆訊的情況下，發出暫准命令，規定審訊的所有必要指示。假如沒有相反的申請提出，暫准命令將在14天內成為絕對命令：Order 25 rule 1A(4)-(6)。第二、安排案件管理會議。

案件管理會議將在法院程序中起關鍵作用。在相應的案件中，可能會舉行若干案件管理會議。
在案件管理會議中，法院應當發佈各項達至審理有關案件的指示，包括設定審訊前覆核的日期、審訊日期或進行審訊的期間：Order 25 rule 1A(2)；另參見Order 25 rule 1A(1)和(3)。
法院確定的時間表將區別「進度指標日期」和「非進度指標日期」。進度指標日期是確定聆訊下次案件的管理會議、審訊前覆核或審訊的日期。所有其他日期均為非進度指標日期。下文討論進度指標日期的意義。

案件管理會議中制定的時間表，假設訴訟各方已經告知法院所有的問題並預計了非正審步驟。
正如上文提到，各方的法律代表必須隨時瞭解案件的各方面情況，並遠比目前更早地著手開展案件的準備工作。新的實務指示 5.2（案件管理） （PD 5.2）在第4段和第46段對此清楚作出了說明：

「(4) 各方及其法律顧問必須理解，沒有他們的盡責審慎與合作，便不可能富有效率與成效地解決爭議。法院將依照Order 1A中設定的基本目標主動開展案件管理 …

(46) 出席聆訊的法律代表應當是案件的負責人，在任何情況下均必須熟悉案件，能夠向法院提供後者可能需要的資料，以便其就案件管理作出決定，並擁有[原文如此] 充分的職權，可處理可能出現的任何事項。」

就後一項要求而言，執業者必須事先對可能出現的所有事項進行深思熟慮，以便在案件管理會議中作出考慮與決定，還應當考慮讓一名資深的當事人代表出席案件管理會議。

例如，會要求各方（及其法律代表）告知法院文件披露與狀書完整無缺，告知剩餘非正審活動的範圍，並提示訟費的範圍與水平。重要的是，準備不充分的法律代表將會被頒發虛耗訟費令：PD 5.2第48段。如果該等缺乏準備並非由於指示不足，而是由於執業者未能對案件管理會議進行充分的準備，則該執業者無疑將難以把此類訟費轉嫁給客戶。

在提交案件管理會議問卷的同時，從2020年1月1日（有關調解的新實務指示31生效日）起，各方還必須提交調解證明。該等證明必須由該方及其律師簽署，確認該方是否願意嘗試調解，若不願意，則須說明理由。同時，律師／法律代表還必須確認已經向其客戶解釋了「調解的可行性 … 以及調解相對於訴訟的相應費用情況。」

各方及其法律代表應當作好準備，在案件管理會議中與法院討論上述事項。如果各方尚未真正努力通過調解解決爭議，法院在大多數情況下很可能指示各方首先嘗試調解，並短期押後法律程序，以便開展各項相應活動。

今後，法院將不再接受姍姍來遲的時間表變更要求或戰術性拖延，執業者應當確保當事人瞭解這一點。例如，很遲才轉換律師或改為自行辯護將不再是押後的充分利由。
PD 5.2第45段還規定，除非法院另有指示，否則出庭律師應當出席法官審理的案件管理會議和審訊前覆核的所有聆訊。

就法院設定的時間表而言，各方可以同意變動非進度指標日期：Order 25 rule 1B(4)。各方應當彼此之間就非進度指標日期的非重大變動達成一致，而無須各執一詞為法院製造麻煩。然而，假如謀求對非進度指標日期進行重大變動（而各方無法就此達成一致），則法院僅會在有「充分理由」的情況下變動日期：Order 25 rule 1B(6)，但請注意，如果該等變動要求同時變動審訊日期或審訊期間，則法院不會變更日期：Order 25 rule 1B(7)。PD 5.2第41段規定，只有在發出即時「除非」命令並訂明假如有進一步不遵守情況便會採取適當懲罰的情況下，才會准予延期申請。

無論何種情況，各方都必須令法院隨時瞭解進度。除非提交了相關的「同意傳票」，否則即使是彼此同意，亦不應超過須遵循的時限。

一方必須向法院申請後，才可能變動任何進度指標日期：Order 25 rule 1B(2)，而不能藉同意而改變該等日期。Order 25 rule 1B(3)規定，僅在例外情形中，才會變動進度指標日期。執業者已經被警告，變動進度指標日期的申請大多會被拒絕。 PD 5.2第42段規定：

「除非是屬於極端例外的情形，否則進度指標日期不可變動；就此而言，諸如客戶指示延遲、律師團隊變動、不存在給對方造成無法以訟費補償的損害等理由不會被視為例外情形。」

如果原告人未能出席案件管理會議或審訊前覆核，申索將會遭到暫時剔除；如果不存在反申索，那麼訴訟亦會被駁回。假如被告人未能出席案件管理會議或審訊前覆核，任何反申索將會遭到暫時剔除：Order 25 rule 1C(1)和(2)。

各方可以根據情況，在三個月內申請恢復申索或反申索。有關人士必須說明充分理由，而法院可以設置恢復的條件：Order 25 rule 1C(3)-(5)。

簡而言之，上述規定的效果在於，各方必須在遠比以前更早的階段便熟悉案件的各方面情況。在召開案件管理會議之時，各方必須已經最終確定狀書，完成文件透露（以盡可能經濟的方式—參見PD 5.2 B部分），並能夠告知法院需要採取哪些步驟，才可以逐步將案件交付審訊。在許多情況下，出庭律師應當出席，並充分知曉情況，以便能夠向法院講述案件，以及出現的需要考慮的問題。就這點而言，案件管理會議在某些方面更像目前的審訊前覆核。

就其自身而言，法院應當在遠比以前更早的階段便更充分瞭解案件，這反過來使得法院可以在將案件提交審訊的過程中發揮遠比以前重要的作用。各方應當預計到，案件管理會議中的法官或聆案官將會充分運用自身的案件管理權，並發揮遠比以前更為主動的作用，以確定案件如何進展。正如上文所述，這可能包括：決定是否應當簡要處理事項；決定按什麼順序審理事項；協助各方調停案件。

一旦確定後，進度指標日期便不太可能變動，即使雙方同意作出變更。如果一方後來意識到需要更多時間，目前亦極不可能因此而導致法院准予任何延期，各方將須遵守准予的時間表。這再次意味著，各方及其律師和出庭大律師必須在案件管理會議之前完全瞭解案情，這樣才能商定審訊的時間表。

Kathryn Sanger
Senior Associate
Clifford Chance
kathryn.sanger@cliffordchance.com