DOCTRINE OF LACHES

MEANING

Doctrine of Laches, to understand this concept we need to first know the meaning of the term ‘Laches’ it’s a legal system, laches is a lack of diligence and activity basically an undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege. Undue delay means act of postponing and slowing, whereas Laches means the equitable doctrine by which a court denies relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed in asserting claim. Laches is basically derived from the Latin word ‘Laxare’ which means to loosen or we can say loosen by law.

Doctrine is a principle of, set of rules, upheld by court of law. Doctrine of Laches is a legal maxim that supports who is legally aware of his own rights and filing a suit in due time because court will not help the one who ignores their rights while supporting those who are conscious of them. A person is said to be liable for laches when he comes to the court to affirm their rights after a reasonable delay in that respect. It is the responsibility of the individual making the laches claim to demonstrate its applicability.

PURPOSE OF DOCTRINE OF LACHES

The purpose of Doctrine of Laches is to promote fairness and equity and it functions as delay in filing a lawsuit by the petitioner is an advantage for the opposing party. It transfers the burden of proof to the petitioner and aids the defendant in putting this notion on defence. The petitioner has to give a reasonable statement for the delay. Article 32[1] ensures the right to approach the court but it does not restrict the decision of the judge to grant relief. In civil court, it offers legal remedies in the way of damages that is monetary relief or offers equitable relief in the forms of specific performance. 

DOCTRINE OF LACHES IN CRIMINAL CASES

In most of the criminal cases the doctrine of laches is less relevant in criminal offences; these cases have STATUTE OF LIMITATION, which provides a specific time limit to file a suit for the offence. The doctrine of laches is not always applicable in criminal cases but only in exceptional cases where prejudice is evident to the defendant because the key element of laches shows how the delay has caused and to invoke laches the defence must show that the delay in prosecution was unreasonable by considering the facts of the case.

DOCTRINE OF LACHES EMANATE FROM THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963

The doctrine of laches is originated from this Act, as it is based on the principle that courts will not help them who sleeps over their rights, in simple terms it means that the court denies the relief to them who unreasonably delays in asserting their rights. Whereas, The Limitation Act, 1963 is a statutory law that sets the specific time limit to bring the matter to the court that is the legal action must be taken within the specific time. It bars a claim to be filed beyond the prescribed time period, laches is a broader concept of fairness i.e, the claim can be filed beyond the time barred by the Limitation Act. Therefore, the doctrine of Laches has evolved from the Limitation Act, 1963.

DOCTRINE OF LACHES AND ITS NOT STRICT APPLICABILITY

The doctrine of laches is not strictly applicable in the writ of Habeas Corpus because the right to immediate release from unlawful detention is paramount. However, the court may still consider the delay on the basis of the circumstances of the case. Other writs such as Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition is more likely to in applicability of laches only if there is significant delay in filing the petition.

CASE STUDY

Case Study – Macquarie Units Pty Ltd v Sunchen Pty Ltd[2] In the case of Macquarie Units Pty Ltd v Sunchen Pty Ltd, the defence of laches can be seen in action and as a valid defence in court:-

In this case, the plaintiff, Macquarie Units Pty Ltd, asserted an equitable claim, and the respondents, Sunchen Pty Ltd, raised the defence of laches against it. They felt that the plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay in bringing their claim to light had changed the situation to the point where granting the claim would be detrimental. The Court acknowledges that the laches defence was legitimate and that an undue amount of time had passed between the infringement of rights and the filing of the claim (Meagher JA, White, and Brereton JJA concurring). Therefore, it was determined that the claim was unfounded and would cause prejudice, which resulted in the case being dismissed.

This instance exemplifies the doctrine of laches being used to protect someone’s rights and ensure a fair outcome is allowed. ‘Delay’ is a crucial component in evaluating whether the doctrine of laches may be used. As we’ve seen, equity differs from the law in that it is more flexible, but both have as their primary objective determining and enforcing a just resolution of the issue.

Having said that, not everyone who makes an equitable claim will be successful because not all situations are appropriate and sometimes the claim may not result in a fair resolution. Consequently, in situations where it might not be fair, defences must be in place to shield people who have had equitable claims brought against them. The doctrine of laches can be used in this situation.

In civil law, you will have a deadline within which to file a claim in order for it to be deemed legitimate and accepted. This will change based on the claim and the conditions related to the claim. Equity and equitable claims reflect this as well.
To be reasonable when talking about equity, you have to make your claim within a certain time frame! But because fairness does not depend on legislation in the same way that laws do, this criterion is applied through the doctrine of laches.

By using the defence of laches, a party might argue that the other party has been slow to file a claim and that this is unfair because things have changed since then.
It is not necessary for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit straight away following the infringement of rights since they have time to weigh their choices and consult with an attorney. In addition, the court will take into account any justifiable reasons for the postponement, including personal tragedies or illness.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine is used by the court to decide whether in the present matter there is inordinate delay in filing the petition based on the circumstance of the case.In situations when the petitioner took an excessive amount of time to file a lawsuit, the respondent benefits from this theory. It is a defence to absolve the respondent of any responsibility in relation to the charges. A fundamental component of this doctrine is predicated on the judge’s good faith. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, doctrine has been essential to preserving equity in the legal system. The respondent has the benefit of using the petitioner’s lack of education and slowness in asserting his legal rights at a specific moment; hence the petitioner will bear the burden of proof in this case. Because it is up to the court to decide how to apply the theory of laches, it is not legislated.

Reference(s):

[1] INDIA CONST.art.32

[2] Macquarie Units Pty Ltd v Sunchen Pty Ltd, (2023) NSWCA 116