LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Effect of Failure to Traverse Allegation
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The rule of pleadings is that in order to raise an issue of fact, there must be a proper traverse; if a defendant refuses to admit a particular allegation in a Statement of Claim, he must state so expressly and specifically; he does not do this satisfactorily by pleading that he is not in a position to admit or deny a particular allegation or that he will at the trial put the plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The rule of pleadings is that in order to raise an issue of fact, there must be a proper traverse. If a defendant refuses to admit a particular allegation in a Statement of Claim, he must state so expressly and specifically and he does not do this satisfactorily by pleading that he is not in a position to admit or deny a particular allegation or/and that he will at the trial put the plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Proper traverse requires express, specific denial or non-admission. Inadequate traverses include: “I am not in a position to admit or deny”—this is evasive, not a proper denial; “I put plaintiff to strict proof”—this doesn’t deny the allegation, merely states plaintiff must prove it (which plaintiff must do anyway for denied matters). These formulations fail to raise factual issues because they don’t clearly indicate: what facts are contested, what the defendant’s position is, or whether the allegation is admitted or denied. Proper traverse states: “I deny paragraph X” (express denial), or “Paragraph X is not admitted” (express non-admission). Either suffices, but evasive language doesn’t. Consequence of improper traverse: the allegation may be deemed admitted under pleading rules, no factual issue is raised for trial, and plaintiff may succeed without proof on that point. This strict requirement serves: clarity about disputed facts, fair notice to opponents, and efficient trial preparation focusing on genuine disputes. Defendants must take clear positions on allegations, not hedge with ambiguous responses.