And it only restricted to civil cases. Not CRIMINAL cases.
Wind blow? LOLI can't quite remember the rationale for this change. I'm sure you can Google it and find out.

The wig of a British High Court judge flaps in the wind during a procession from Temple Bar to Westminster Abbey in central London, in this file photo from October 1, 2001.
From the article:
"Opponents of wigs thought they were anachronistic, as well as uncomfortable and expensive."
"While there will never be unanimity of view about court dress, the desirability of these changes has a broad measure of agreement," Phillips said.
The wig gives them authority and anonymity! Anonymity? So it's a way of hiding themselves."However, the idea of abolishing them has met with disapproval from some lawyers who feel the wigs give them an air of authority as well as anonymity."
If they could reformed the tradition to not require them in civil and family case, it's not impossible they will abolish it completely in the future. HK has no obligation to wait until then, HK could just make their decision freely now. And China doesn't even need to involve itself. Wasn't it all about freedom being the main demand of those rioters last year? Chaining themselves to colonial past isn't actually freedom at all, especially paying their allegiance directly or indirectly to head of foreign country.