laches

References to laches is commonly associated with delay or inaction in taking legal action, after the infringement of legal rights has taken place. In English law, the doctrine operates to preclude a claimant obtaining relief from a Court where delay renders the granting of the remedy sought unjust, or where the conduct and neglect of the claimant in bringing proceedings unreasonably places the defendant in the position of remaining liable to the claimant. The essential elements of the defence are that the delay must be unreasonable, and the grant of the relief sought must have become unjust, as the inaction of the claimant somehow caused prejudice to or detrimental reliance by the defendant.

Delay taking Legal Action

The doctrine of laches has been found to apply to delay:

1. commencing proceedings, particularly for interim relief such as for injunctions;
2. making applications during the course of litigation for relief;
3. continuing with proceedings which have been commenced which have not been prosecuted; and
4. executing judgments.

For the purposes of the defence, the relevant time commences when the claimant knew of all the relevant facts underlying a cause of action. It is at this point that the claimant is deemed to know that the right to relief existed. The length of the delay and the nature of the acts done are relevant in the period between when knowledge of the cause of action was obtained by the claimant and when the action was finally taken.

Having said this, claimants are entitled to file claims on the day before a limitations period applies. Laches and the related defence of acquiescence are defences to claims which are available to be advanced by a defendant.

Time

Laches is important in the context of applying for and obtaining interim relief. Courts usually expect claimants to take proceedings with reasonable diligence, and so a delay of more than a small number of weeks may be fatal to an application for interim relief (such as an interim injunction), unless the delay may be explained away, for instance by way of continuing negotiations between the litigants.

Even then, where negotiations are unlikely to bear fruit, a court will in all likelihood expect commencement of proceedings for interim relief within a relatively short period of time. Laches does not effect the availability of permanent injunctions which are available after the trial, however Courts retain a discretion to refuse permanent injunctive relief where it would be oppressive to the defendant, particularly where the acts or omissions of the claimant have contributed to that oppression.

Unjust or Unconscionable

When deciding whether it would be unjust to grant a remedy, the court will have regard to the length of the delay and the intervening events which may upset the usual balance of justice in respect to the particular remedy sought. The change of position between the parties may be mitigated by the claimant accepting a lesser remedy which would reduce or abrogate the injustice caused by the delay. The injustice may arise by:

1. the loss of documents over time which prevents the defendant raising defences;
2. property having has been disposed of;
3. the defendant may have declined to take opportunities to mitigate its position, to name a few. Moreover the position of the defendant may have worsened by doubt and uncertainty, particularly in cases where the property in question is of fluctuating value. A claimant is not entitled to keep a defendant in suspense so as to allow damage to accrue prior to making a claim, or affect the enjoyment of the benefit of owning property or the value of property.

The application of the doctrine of laches is a balancing exercise to determine whether the claimant should succeed to obtaining the relief sought, or whether it would be unjust to do so. The position of the claimant is not disregarded. The effect of denying a remedy to the claimant is factor in the balancing exercise. The position of the claimant takes a diminished role because it is the claimant’s inaction which has brought about the prejudice to the defendant or a party should not be lost on the claimant. Greater weight will in all likelihood be placed on the position of the defendant due to the hardship caused by the claimant.

Avoiding Laches

The circumstances of the case at hand will also have a bearing on the degree of expedition to seek relief from the Courts. Where the litigation relates to assets which have fluctuating value, greater expedition may be called for than in other cases. On the other hand, greater complexity relating to the area of law to be applied or preliminary steps to be taken may justify greater delay. Laches applies to equitable remedies and not those available at common law. Therefore, a claimant may by its conduct disentitle itself to an injunction, but may still be entitled to damages, which is a common law remedy.