Delay Defeats Equity
1. Introduction:
Equity helps those who are vigilant toward their rights. reasonable diligence is the first requisite for an equitable relief. if a person has negligently slept over his rights for a length of time disproportionately long, equity will not allow him the litigate in respect of them. the person who is guilty of laches or undue delay is not entitled to relief by the court of equity.
2. Meaning:
It means equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.
3. Case law:
Smith Vs. Clay
1767 3 Bro CC 639
Where an injured party has been slow to demand a remedy for a wrong he has long regarded with apparent indifference, the court will decline to give him that remedy on the grounds of public policy.
4. Purpose:
This maxim discourages laches by making it bar to relief.
5. Doctrine of laches:
The delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from obtaining an equitable relief is called laches. A plaintiff who is guilty of laches or unreasonable delay is not entitled to equitable relief.
(i) Acquiescence:
Acquiescence means assent after the violation had been completed and the plaintiff has become aware of it. acquiescence is the chief element of laches.
(ii) Change in defendant position:
A court of equity will not allow a dormant claim to be set up when the means of resisting it, if unfounded have perished. when by laps of time the defendant has lost the evidence necessary for resisting the claim, equity discountenances a state claim.
6. Application:
This maxim applies only when a claim is made to equitable relief.
7. When delay is fatal:
In following cases delay is fatal.
I. Loss of evidence:
When available evidence is lost or destroyed.
II. Waiver of right:
When one has waived his rights then delay is fatal.
8. Circumstances when delay can be ignored by the court:
In the following circumstances, delay can be ignored by the court.
- The plaintiff was not aware of his rights.
- The plaintiff was not aware of his legal position.
- The plaintiff was a minor.
- The plaintiff was insane.
- Fraud
- Natural act.
- Illness
- Under influence.
- Substitute.
- Process compromise.
9. Limitations:
Following are the limitations of this maxim.
- When the law of limitation expressly applies.
- Where it applies by analogy.
- Where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases a governed by ordinary rules of laches.
10. Position in Pakistan:
The English doctrine of delay and laches showing negligence in seeking relief in the court of equity cannot be applicable in Pakistan in view of article 113 of the limitation act, which fixes a period of three years within which a suit of specific performance should be filed. so it has no general application in Pakistan.
11. Conclusion:
To conclude I can say that, where a person has negligently slept over his right, the court will decline to give him that remedy, because equity aids the vigilant not the indolent. however, this maxim has no application when a legal remedy is available to the party concerned or statutes of limitation prescribe the time which in which a remedy is to be enforced.