Certification of pleadings in Victorian courts

By virtue of the Supreme Court (Chapter I Amendment No. 21) Rules 2010 and the Civil Procedure Act, 2010 This is what solicitors using the Supreme Court of Victoria are going to have to sign before lodging pleadings as of next year:

‘In accordance with section 42 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010, I [name of legal practitioner or if not legally represented, name of party] certify to the Court that, in relation to the document [identify document to which certification relates] filed on behalf of [specify party], on the factual and legal material available to me at present:

(a)    each allegation of fact in the document has a proper basis;

*(b) each denial in the document has a proper basis;

*(c) there is a proper basis for each non-admission in the document.

Date:
*Delete if not applicable.’

I will be interested to learn what a proper basis for a non-admission is.

See also:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Replies to “Certification of pleadings in Victorian courts”

  1. Sub-section 41(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 should help with your strange interest. According to it, a proper basis of any non-admission is that the legal practitioner does not know, and therefore cannot say, whether a fact alleged or denial is true or untrue.

    It does not seem to allow for a party to not admit a fact which he or she knows to be true but wants the other party to prove.

  2. One answer is in CPA s. 42(3)(b): "that the legal practitioner does not know, and therefore cannot say, whether a fact alleged or denial is true or untrue".

    1. Yes, thanks for that. That section says:

      \'(3) For the purposes of this section, a determination by a legal practitioner—
      (a) as to whether any allegation or denial of fact has a proper basis, on the factual and legal material available, must be based on a reasonable belief as to the truth or untruth of the allegation or denial; or
      (b) as to the proper basis of any non-admission is that the legal practitioner does not know, and therefore cannot say, whether a fact alleged or denial is true or untrue.\’

      But I cannot understand what sub-para (b) means: \’a determination by a legal practitioner as to the proper basis of any non-admission is that the legal practitioner does not know…\’. It does not make sense to me. If it means that the only proper basis for non-admission is ignorance, it is a radical change indeed, since at the present time, many defendants do not admit everything except the most formal matters. That is, they \’put the plaintiff to its proof\’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *