On the scope of a so-called "pleading discount

LEGAL+ NEWS

Or: When are submissions in the appeal instance “new”?

In its decision of 27.2.2018, case no. VIII ZR 90/17, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) specified – very importantly for practice – how comprehensively the so-called pleading discount pursuant to Section 283 ZPO is to be understood (see also the blog post: Appeal courts often wrongly reject late submissions at first instance).

The court of first instance must grant the party surprised by the late submission of the opposing party the right to be heard – without adjourning or reopening the oral hearing – by giving this party the opportunity to comment on this submission within a certain period of time at its request.

With regard to the scope of the opportunity to comment in the sense described above, the courts of lower instances – as the BGH has now once again pointed out – tend to have too narrow an understanding, which tends to limit admissible submissions solely to comments on the correctness or incorrectness of the submission in question.

The BGH has made it clear that the right to comment goes much further:

Entirely new submissions are also to be admitted if and insofar as they are made “in response to the belated submissions of the opposing party”.

The BGH has stated (see decision of 27.2.2018, para. 24):

“Section 283 ZPO is intended to enable a party who is no longer able to respond to an opponent’s submission in good time to make a statement on this within a certain period of time, i.e. to dispute or concede it – if necessary also by means of substantiated counterclaims – or finally to counter it by means of an independent means of attack or defense, possibly based on new factual assertions.

This means:

Even completely (!) new allegations may be admissible if they are to be considered as a “reaction” to the late submission of the opponent.

If the court of first instance fails to recognize this and disregards the allegations in question in its judgment with reference to Section 296a ZPO, this is not a “new” submission in the appeal instance, which must be assessed by the court of appeal without further ado.

The lesson to be learned from this ruling is that even higher courts repeatedly misapply procedural rules. So: watch out!

Do you have any questions?

LATEST ARTICLES

Commercial law

Procedural law: The inactive expert witness

The inactive expert witness is a major dilemma for those affected. The legislator has certainly recognized this and, with a reform of the law on expert witnesses with effect from 15.10.2016, has anchored quite relevant tightening in civil procedure law.

Evidential value of private expert opinions

The evidentiary value of private expert opinions is very close to that of court expert opinions. In practice, this is often not the case: many courts tend to regard private expert opinions, i.e. expert opinions commissioned outside the proceedings, as a nuisance. These expert opinions, which are usually “labeled” as biased, are therefore in most cases considered to be of lesser value than court-commissioned expert opinions and are downgraded in the judgment with clichéd justifications. However, this approach, which is widespread in practice, is not covered by supreme court case law! In fact, expert opinions provided by the parties are important for the constitutionally guaranteed legal protection of the parties. This is the only way to fully uncover – not infrequent – errors in court reports.