Civil Procedure Jan 2018

PCLL Conversion Examination
January 2018
Examiner’s Comments
Civil Procedure
General Comments
The main reasons for the failures were, as usual, in relation to (i) unfamiliarity and/or
misunderstanding of the procedures discussed, (ii) the failure to apply the relevant facts
to the legal principles and (iii) simply listing out or copying of large chunks of materials
from textbooks instead of answering directly the questions posed (often requiring some
discussion or evaluation and analysis of the facts and/ or circumstances of the case,
weighing up the pros and cons/making a recommendation).
When revising for this topic, candidates are encouraged to try to understand the purpose
of each of the procedures examined under the syllabus; what the procedures are intended
to be used for and how the procedures could be applied. Candidates are also encouraged
to read the cases so as to understand how the procedures could be used in real life
scenarios.
Below are some specific comments on each question.
Question 1(a)
This question was about the methods of settlement pre-action. Many candidates discussed
the procedure under Order 22 and hence lost a lot of marks. Candidates should realise
that Order 22 applies only to actions where proceedings have commenced. The relevant
procedures to talk about under this question were those which were applicable before
proceedings have been commenced, e.g. WP settlement negotiations and ADR. Instead of
just listing out the options, candidates were specifically asked to comment on what is/are
the most appropriate way(s) and marks were awarded accordingly.
Question 1(b)
This question concerned costs-only proceedings under section 52B of the High Court
Ordinance/section 53B of the District Court Ordinance and Order 62 rule 11A of the
High Court and District Court Rules. Candidates who correctly identified this procedure
would have scored very well for this question.
Question 1(c)
As with question 1(b), candidates who managed to identify that this question mainly
concerned Order 18 rule 7A of the High Court and District Court Rules would have done
well for this question. Unfortunately, many candidates did not appear to be familiar with
this rule.
1
Question 2(a)
This was another very straightforward question which a majority of the candidates
answered well. Since the question posed required candidates to advise on the documents
(as opposed the document) which Kensington had to file to defend the proceedings,
candidates should have talked about the filing of the acknowledgement of service and the
defence and the deadlines for doing so.
Question 2(b)
This was another straightforward question on commencement of third party proceedings

under Order 16. This question was general well answered. Candidates who talked about
joinder of defendants under Order 15 were also credited for their answers.
Question 2(c)
Candidates were required to list out the pre-action considerations which Kensington
should take into account if it were to commence proceedings against the third party. I
understand that candidates are very familiar with this sort of question. They should only
be discussing the relevant ones (e.g. including the fact that Jason Chow appeared to have
absconded and CAL closed down) and discuss whether Kensington should pursue an
action. They should not just stop at listing out the considerations.
Question 3(a)
For this question, candidates were requested to consider the options available to
Kensington if it were amenable to disposing of the legal proceedings with the payment of
a sum of money. Candidates were also asked to advise Kensington on the procedure to
adopt – i.e. give their recommendation to the client. Again this involved more than just
listing out the options. Candidates should have considered the pros and cons of each
method listed and give an advice to the client. Many candidates talked about settlement
negotiations and were credited for such answers. However, the gist of this question
required candidates to discuss the procedure under Order 13A and sanctioned payments
under Order 22 and discuss the pros and cons of each. Whilst a majority of the students
managed to identify Order 22, a substantial number of students missed out Order 13A
and therefore lost some marks accordingly.
Question 3(b)
The question concerning case management after pleadings have closed up to the setting
down of the trial was generally well answered.
Question 4(a)
This was a relatively straightforward question requiring candidates to discuss the

likelihood of success for a summary judgement application. Candidates should be
familiar with this type of problem but the focus is on the application of the rules to the
facts. Given the factual matrix – the fact that the defendant had been convicted and the
2
fact that expert evidence is likely to be required – candidates should evaluate whether a
summary judgement application would likely be successful.
Question 4(b)
This question was very straightforward – if a plaintiff succeeded in a summary judgment

application, it would be entitled to enter judgment in favour of the defendant together
with costs of the action, to be taxed if not agreed.
Question 4(c)
The candidates who did very well for this question talked about each asset that was listed
and whether it could be enforced against and if so, how (i.e. using which method of
enforcement). E.g. for the first listed asset of the 2 bank accounts– good candidates stated
that they could be enforced via a garnishee order and discussed the general procedure for
doing so. Candidates should also answer the client’s question – whether Mr. Tai and his
wife’s properties would be affected. The answer is “No” because these properties do not
belong to the defendant company.

Civil Procedure Jan 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Jan 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Jan 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PCLL Conversion Examination

Below are some specific comments on each question.

This was another straightforward question on commencement of third party proceedings

This was a relatively straightforward question requiring candidates to discuss the

This question was very straightforward – if a plaintiff succeeded in a summary judgment

You might also like