We have been extensively promoting case handling by the president and division directors to ensure practical leadership and effective law enforcement. By the end of November 2016, the number of cases handled by the president and all division directors has reached 624, accounting for 38.25% of the cases handled by all judges in the same period, and up 12.74% compared to the same period last year. This has been achieved mainly through the following measures: first, setting clear objectives for case handling by the president and division directors. The Interim Measures for Case Handling by Court Leaders and Integrated Department Judges and the (Trial) Measures for Assessing Judge Performance were formulated to set out the types, management, and minimum quantities of cases handling by the president and division directors. The president and division directors take the role of chief judges of collegial benches, and get closer to guiding, managing and supervising case hearing. Their functions shift from administration and case approval to direct handling of cases. Secondly, strengthening the management of regular reporting. With an index mechanism to assess hearing performance, monthly reports will be made on 9 indexes of performance of the president and division directors, including the ratio between cases entertained and those concluded over the same periods, average number of days taken to handle a case, rate of time limits used up among all cases, and rate of cases in which judgments are rendered in court. Such public display of performance will effectively promote the quality and efficiency of case handling. Third, using outstanding examples as guidance. When assorting cases, priority should be given to the president and division directors as regards major, difficult and complicated cases. For instance, our court leaders handled the case of CCCC First Harbor Engineering Company Ltd. & CCCC Fourth Harbor Engineering Company Ltd. v Hainan Ruyi Island Resort Investment Co., Ltd., which involved a contract with a subject matter valuing CNY 2.64 billion and a disputed value of CNY 270 million (including counterclaims). Another example is the case of Nanhai Fisheries Group v Qionghai Municipal Government, Hainan Hengrui Co. et al, which involved a disputed value of CNY 130 million. The expertise of the president and division directors has been given full play in handling these cases concerning major projects or of significant social influence. It restores quality trial resources to the front line. Young judges are also scheduled to be members of collegial benches so that they can learn from their seniors.