Answer to claim

On December 30, 2015, Room III of the Labor National Court of Appeals determined that an answer to the claim should not be considered as a single procedural act which is finished with the first filing. In this regard, the court considered that the defendant has all the legal terms to amend the answer or to extend the evidence. Said ruling validated the second filing made by the defendant in a labor lawsuit, considering such filing as part of the answer to the claim.

To reach to such conclusion, the court considered that sections 65 and 71 of law 18,345 of Labor Procedure and section 356 of Code for Argentine Civil and Commercial procedure state nothing about it and that no distinction should be made that the law does not state.

It was also understood, that section 70 of Law 18.345 of labor procedure could be applied in an analogous way, allowing the plaintiff to modify the claim before the correspondent notification. The limit would be that the other party had taken note of the presentation.

The court also highlighted that, in reference to deadlines, it is a practice of the courts to wait for the expiration of the term, even when a presentation has been made before the deadline, to continue with process. This would be an implicit recognition that, during such term, the parties have the possibility to amend, correct and extend the submitted writ.

In this regard, the possibility that the defendant might make a second presentation broadening the answer to the claim was recognized.