Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3067 ..

Amendment negatived.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (5.27): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move amendments 3 and 4 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move amendments 3 and 4 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 2089]. Amendment 3 amends clause 23 of the bill. The words "agree to, or allow a court to set, a hearing date for the claim"are replaced with the phrase "sign a pleading in relation to the claim". This amendment was recommended, as I have just indicated, by the ACT Law Society.

The Law Society was concerned that an obligation on a legal practitioner to certify that the case has reasonable prospects of success would be required before a hearing date is set. The Law Society recommended that a better approach would be to provide that lawyers cannot sign pleadings-for example, claim, defence or cross-claim-unless there are reasonable prospects of success. Changing the time for certification protects clients from incurring costs for litigation that may not proceed and from the potential of paying costs following a discontinuance.

Amendment 4 also amends clause 23 of the bill. The words "an action on a claim for damages is set down for hearing"are replaced with the phase "a pleading has been signed in relation to a claim for damages". Like the previous amendment, this alteration was also recommended to the government by the ACT Law Society. The society was concerned that an obligation on a legal practitioner to certify that a case has reasonable prospects of success is required before a hearing date is set. The society recommended that a better approach is to provide that lawyers cannot sign, et cetera, unless there are reasonable prospects of success. Changing the time, once again, protects the client from incurring the costs of litigation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

MS TUCKER (5.29): I move amendment No 8 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3092]. This amendment makes it clear that there are incidents in trials that cannot be foreseen and that an arguable or even winnable case can disappear very quickly once you are in court. Once again, you have to wonder if the government and its public servants have spoken to the courts on this issue or if the principle of doing business with business has so overtaken their thinking.

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .