Discuss the equitable doctrine of laches, examine its role in limiting legal actions due to unreasonable delays, and explore its application in various legal contexts.
When confronted with potential litigation, there are usually two responses:
Let’s file now or;
Let’s file later.
Let me tell you, that the second option of waiting may not be the judicious course of action due to the equitable defense of laches.
What is Laches?
Laches is a defense available in equity which, in its most basic form, says the plaintiff should be stopped from bringing their claim because they should have brought it earlier. Laches is a legal equitable maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus subvenient leges” (Equity serves the vigilant, and not those who sleep upon their rights), said by Lord Cadman in a famous English Case.
Laches is defined by Lord Ellenborough CJ in Sebag v. Abitbol [1816 (4M&S 462)] as ‘neglect to do something which by law a man is obliged to do’. Negligence in doing that which the statutory law obliges a person to do is thus one meaning of laches.
A person is said to be liable for laches when he comes to the court to affirm his/her rights after a reasonable delay in that respect. The person who is asserting laches has the burden to prove that it is applicable.
When a party raises the defense of laches, they argue that the claimant’s delay in pursuing legal action has resulted in a loss or disadvantage for them. In most cases, the delay in filing a lawsuit by the petitioner/plaintiff/complainant is an advantage for the opposite party. Because of the delay, witnesses depart, memories vanish, and evidence disappears. It helps the defendant put his doctrine on defense and shifts the burden of proof upon the petitioner/plaintiff/complainant as he has to give a reasonable statement for the delay.
To establish laches, the defending party must demonstrate two key elements; (1) an unreasonable delay in asserting the claim, and (2) prejudice suffered due to the delay. Courts carefully evaluate the circumstances surrounding the delay, taking into account factors such as the lengths of the delay, reasons for the delay, the nature of the claim, and the impact on the opposing party.
Laches is synonymous with remissness, dilatoriness, and unreasonable or unexpected delay.
Practical Application of Laches:
In Writ Petition No. 19091 of 2009, the doctrine of laches was considered with a dispute over matrimonial issues. The court had to determine whether the petitioner had unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights, which could potentially cause prejudice to the respondent.
In Public International Law, where there is no established, supra-judicial legislative body to prescribe an international statute of limitations, state claims before international tribunals are even more problematic. Judicial and arbitral applying international law must look elsewhere for principles that will allow them to deny claims that are either decades old or patently unfair to a particular party due to the passage of time.
In CP No. D-723 of 2011 the learned High Court of Sindh held that Laches in simplest form mean failure of a person to do something that should have been done by him within a reasonable time if the remedy of the constitutional petition is not availed within a reasonable time the interference can be refused on the ground of laches.
In property disputes, laches and acquiescence may be invoked to prevent a claimant from asserting their ownership rights over a piece of land or property if they have unreasonably delayed or silently consented to another party’s use or possession. Similarly, in intellectual property cases, a party may be barred from asserting their rights if they have tolerated another party’s infringing actions without objection for an extended period.
Exception to Statute of Limitation:
If the person seeking performance has not committed such delay as would cause prejudice to the other side or would amount to waiver or acquiescence on the part of the person seeking performance, laches by itself would not be sufficient ground. Thus, it can be shown that the plaintiff in the suit had actively done something to lead the defendant to suppose that he had abandoned his claim against the latter, the doctrine of laches would have no application in cases where the statute of limitation has fixed a date for suing for performance. Equity has never treated delay simpliciter as a bar.
Conclusion:
Laches presupposes not only lapses of time but also, the existence of circumstances that render it unjust to give relief to the Plaintiff. Laches may preclude relief, although actual assent or acquiescence on the part of the Plaintiff may not be proved. The question of laches comes in when the Plaintiff seeks an equitable relief. However, the principles of laches, which are based on the equitable doctrine, do not apply to a case where the court has to determine the legal rights of the party.
