Study on the Performance of Continuous Trial in Civil Cases - the Example of Taiwan High Court
Date Issued
2006
Date
2006
Author(s)
Wei, Li-Chuan
DOI
zh-TW
Abstract
In a plural, complex, and rapidly evolving society with an intricate division of labor system, the courts face increasingly heavy caseloads that are not short of complex cases involving expertise in various areas. Under limited judicial resources and infinitely rising cases, there are some pressing issues that should be actively dealt with, for instance, how to cut down on lawsuits and alleviate docket congestion to uphold the rights of the people to sue, and how to speed up trial proceedings and ensure that the disposition of every case meets the public demands for judicial impartiality, justice and professionalism to win the confidence of the litigants or the public.
Conventional approaches to addressing the aforementioned issues, such as advocating the use of lawsuit as the last resort to settle a dispute and urging judges to speed up the adjudication process, hardly achieve the intent of laws to resolve disputes and uphold judicial impartiality and justice. Thus the roles of court process reengineering and case management strategy are gaining importance and becoming a vital issue in judicial reform. Amid people’s expectation and the world trends, Taiwan held a three-day national judicial reform meeting in July 1999, in which, the reform guidelines were established. The Code of Civil Procedure also underwent significant amendment in February 2000. The biggest change in that round of amendment was the adoption of “ concentrated proceeding” system. The objectives of the continuous trial system are: 1. to facilitate the use of litigation system by the public; 2. to prevent the occurrence or widening of dispute; 3. to expand the functions of litigation system in resolution of disputes; 4. to ensure proper litigation process; and 5. to cut down on lawsuits.
The new civil litigation system has been implemented for six years now. It is time to examine the core aspects of the concentrated proceeding system (CPS), including the strategies employed in promoting CPS and the effectiveness of CPS, the views of the judges on various measures taken, and the extent of CPS practice. This study collected the statistical data of the Judicial Yuan from January 2003 to April 2006 with the aim to analyze about the current status and the effectiveness of CPS. This study also carried out questionnaire survey of judges in civil divisions of the first instance in the District Courts and the second instance in the High Court. The survey posed the following questions: 1. the effect (of the implementation of CPS) on number of days to close a case; 2. the effect on cutting down on lawsuits; 3. the effect on appeal rate; 4. the effect on affirmative rate: 5. the effect on settlement rate; 6. the effect on the adjudication quality of the first instance; 7. the effect on the adjudication quality of the second instance; 8. the effect on litigants’ overall satisfaction with the court proceeding; 9. the effect on the litigation expenses incurred by litigants; 10. the effect on public confidence in the judicial system; and 11. the effect on overall performance of the courts. Data gathered from the questionnaire were subject to statistical analysis to observe the correlation between the extent of CPS practice and adjudication efficiency. It is hoped that this empirical analysis can make some conclusions and suggestions in the following aspects to help the promotion of CPS in civil cases: 1. the strategic approach to civil litigation system reform; 2. the effectiveness of support measures for CPS; 3. the extent of CPS practice; and 4. the overall effectiveness of CPS.
Based on the analysis of the statistical data of the Judicial Yuan, the study drew the following conclusions:
1. The current status of the concentrated proceeding process:
(1) The percentage of the concentrated proceeding cases in the district courts was apparently low, averaging merely 26.53%.
(2) The concentrated proceeding practice was prevalent in high courts with 73.98% of the cases averagely adopting the CPS.
2. The effectiveness of the concentrated proceeding:
(1) The effect on litigation time: The adoption of CPS generally resulted in prolonged litigation, especially in cases where neither litigant was represented by a counsel. The CPS helped only the speed of court proceeding in the second instance when it was adopted in the first instance.
(2) The effect on appeal rate: The adoption of CPS in fact increased the appeal rate, especially in cases where the litigants were represented by counsels.
(3) The effect on affirmative rate: The adoption of CPS increased the affirmative rate noticeably, especially in cases where CPS was adopted in the first instance.
(4) The effect of cutting down on lawsuits: The adoption of CPS lowered the rates of settlement, mediation and withdrawal, which did not cut down on lawsuits and help reduce judge’s caseload.
(5) The effect on adjudication quality: The adoption of CPS significantly enhanced the accuracy of ruling, thereby boosting the adjudication quality.
(6) The effect on the number of days of concluding a case: The adoption of CPS resulted in prolonged litigation, thereby protracting the time to conclude a case. The benefit of CPS in shortening the days of concluding a case was more noticeable only in appeal cases when it was adopted in the first instance, especially in cases affirmed by the Supreme Court (i.e. shorter days of closing a case and high affirmative rate).
3. Major findings from the questionnaire survey of judges:
(1) There is room for improvement with regard to court’s efforts in holding seminars or workshops on CPS and attendance of related seminars or discussion forums by the judges.
(2) The judicial administration should infuse more resources (e.g. manpower, funding, etc.) into the administrative support for CPS.
(3) The rules concerning some support measures for CPS, i.e. excludary effects as sanctions and qualified review de novo were not effectively enforced, which undermined the adjudication efficiency.
(4) No significant difference existed among judges with regard to the adoption of CPS and results of implementation.
(5) The extent of CPS practice and adjudication efficiency are significantly related. Thus efforts should be made to enhance the practice of CPS.
With regard to the current status and deficiencies in the implementation of CPS by the courts, this study suggests the following:
1. Administrative supports:
(1) Setting up the post of the judge assistant or the court administrator to assist in the formulation of the issues between the litigants to put into effect the spirit of CPS and speed up and enhance the professionalism of the issue formulation.
(2) Providing a conference room equipped with necessary setups inside the courthouse for issue formulation.
(3) Offering incentives, increasing the rewards, or holding more seminars or workshops to urge district court judges to adopt the CPS system.
(4) Establishing and providing clear concentrated proceeding, standard litigation forms, and instructions on CPS for public inquiry to reduce trial delay and waste caused by lack of understanding or misuse of the court proceedings on the part of litigants.
2. Enforcing the codes on restricted further proceedings (the first paragraph, of Article 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and loss of rights (the second paragraph of Article 196, 268-2, 276, and 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure) to make sure the litigants are keenly aware of the court procedure and avoid pointless delay.
3. Improvement of counsel system:
(1) Implementing mandatory counsel representation system or requiring counsel representation in cases involving certain amount of money or higher, or in some special types of cases to ensure the effective working of CPS.
(2) Improving lawyer’s education and stepping up their continuing education to make sure the CPS process is not impeded by the lack of adequate training on the part of counsels.
4. In conjunction with the adoption of mandatory counsel representation system and referring to the pre-trial system in the United States, a trial should be divided into pre-trial preparation stage and court hearing stage. Such division is designed to put more responsibility on litigants in issue formulation and reduce court involvement in this preparatory process. With the support of a rigorously enforced excludary effects as sanctions system, the court can proceed with actual hearing after the litigants have prepared all the details on the case and close the hearing in the shortest time through continuous trial. This can help avoid meaningless waste of rare judicial resources and let the designed functions of continuous trial system be brought into play.
Subjects
集中審理
審判程序
民事訴訟程序
司法改革
審判效能
案件管理
證據開示
審前審理
法院組織
訴訟制度
爭點整理
限制續審制
失權效果
concentrated proceeding
trial proceeding
civil procedure
judicial reform
adjudication efficiency
case management
discovery of evidence
pre-trial
court organization
litigation system
issue formulation
qualified review de novo
excludary effects as sanctions
SDGs
Type
other
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-95-P92743015-1.pdf
Size
23.31 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):5ae4620f761fffb14a7a5dd32053af8f