What is the Doctrine of Laches and Acquiescence?

And how does it relate to a sleeping cat?

Author: Ian Aldridge, Progressive Legal

The Doctrine of Laches and Acquiescence is a legal principle that operates as a defence against a legal claim. It is based on the idea that a party who unreasonably delays pursuing a claim or acquiesces to the actions of another party for an extended period may lose their right to enforce their claim or remedy.

Business owners often weigh their options before initiating litigation, especially due to the cost and delay associated with it. Yet procrastination can be as damaging in this context; when a dispute remains unresolved longer than necessary, serious issues may arise during proceedings that could have been avoided with timely action.

What is the Defence of Laches and can I use it to defend my case?

The law has a clear message: don’t let your legal rights go to sleep (like the cat in the above picture)! The doctrine of ‘laches’ is designed to ensure that individuals can never take too long in pursuing their legal claims. If someone takes an unreasonable amount of time, they risk the possibility that their right may no longer be enforceable and become “barred by laches”. Legal action must be swift if it hopes to succeed. 

In protecting against unreasonable delay in bringing a court case, the doctrine of ‘laches’ emerges as an equitable defence. Rooted in the Latin phrase Vigilantibus non dormientius aequitas subvenit – or “equity assists those who are vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights” – this approach stands to ensure all parties remain fair-minded and conscientious when seeking justice. The Court strives to ensure fairness when it comes to pending claims – those notified of their claim must take prompt and appropriate steps to safeguard the equitable resolution of their case. 

However, delay alone is not sufficient to refuse a ground for an injunction and prevent claiming relief – the intention of the delay must have been proven to cause prejudice to the defendant and the consequence of the delay is making it unfair to grant relief. This test focuses on the actual conduct of the complainant. Conversely, the defence of laches can only be taken up by a defendant if its conduct has not been dishonest or its use and adoption of the mark was bona fide.   

When a defence of laches is raised, it’s important to consider the following: 

• the length of the delay; and
• the nature of the acts done during the period of delay which may affect either party. 

The general rule of thumb is, the longer the delay, the easier it will be to imply acquiescence, and the more likely it will be that the defendant has suffered prejudice. 

What is the difference between limitation and laches?

Crucial to remember is that laches is different from the statute of limitation, which sets a specific period within which a claim must be made. Laches is not designed to undermine statutory imposed limitations. Instead, it is a defence available over and above the statutory limitations in a court of equity. 

Limitation and laches are two legal principles that are often used to limit a party’s ability to bring a claim after a certain period of time has passed. While they share some similarities, there are also some important differences between the two principles.

Limitation refers to the time limit within which a party must bring a claim or action, after which the claim will be barred. The limitation period varies depending on the jurisdiction and the type of claim being made, but it generally ranges from a few months to several years. Once the limitation period has expired, the party is no longer able to bring the claim.

Laches, on the other hand, is a legal doctrine that may be applied to prevent a party from bringing a claim even if the limitation period has not expired. Laches is based on the idea that a party who has unreasonably delayed in bringing a claim and has allowed the other party to rely on their inaction should be prevented from bringing the claim. Unlike limitation, laches is not a fixed time period, but rather it depends on the circumstances of the case.

Another difference between the two principles is that limitation is a statutory requirement, meaning that it is set out in legislation, while laches is an equitable doctrine, meaning that it is based on principles of fairness and justice rather than statute law.

Overall, while both limitation and laches serve to limit a party’s ability to bring a claim after a certain period of time has passed, limitation is a fixed time period set out in statute law, while laches is an equitable doctrine that depends on the particular circumstances of the case. 

What is meant by the maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity”? 

The maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity” is a legal principle that refers to the requirement that a party who seeks the assistance of a court of equity must be willing to do what is fair and equitable in their own conduct. In other words, if a party seeks to enforce their legal rights in a court of equity, they must themselves act in a fair and equitable manner. 

This principle reflects the idea that a court of equity seeks to do justice, not simply to enforce the strict letter of the law. It also reflects the idea that equity is not a one-way street; rather, it requires both parties to act in an equitable and fair manner. If a party seeks the assistance of a court of equity, but has not acted in a fair and equitable manner themselves, they may be denied relief. 

For example, if a plaintiff seeks an injunction to prevent a defendant from using a trade mark, but the plaintiff has engaged in misleading conduct in relation to the same trade mark, a court of equity may refuse to grant the injunction on the basis that the plaintiff has not done equity. This principle is closely related to the maxim “clean hands,” which requires that a party seeking relief in equity must themselves have acted with clean hands, meaning that they must not have engaged in any wrongful or unconscionable conduct in relation to the dispute. 

Overall, the maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity” is an important principle in the law of equity, and reflects the idea that parties seeking relief in a court of equity must themselves act in a fair and equitable manner. 

What are the five principles of equity?

The five principles of equity, also known as the maxims of equity, are fundamental legal principles that guide courts in the application of equitable remedies. These maxims reflect the broad principles that underlie the law of equity, and are intended to ensure that equitable remedies are applied fairly and justly.  

The five principles of equity are: 

Equity follows the law

This maxim means that equitable remedies are available only where there is no adequate remedy at law. In other words, if there is an appropriate legal remedy available, a court of equity will not provide a different or additional remedy.

Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

This principle reflects the idea that a court of equity will provide a remedy where there is no adequate legal remedy available. If a person has suffered a legal wrong, but there is no adequate legal remedy, a court of equity will seek to provide a remedy to ensure that justice is done.

Equity regards substance over form

This maxim means that a court of equity will look to the substance of a transaction or relationship, rather than its form. In other words, if the substance of a transaction is inequitable, a court of equity will seek to remedy the injustice, even if the form of the transaction is technically legal.

Equity is equality

This principle reflects the idea that a court of equity seeks to achieve fairness and equality between the parties. A court of equity will seek to balance the interests of the parties and to ensure that each party is treated fairly and justly.

Equity acts in personam

This maxim means that a court of equity can only bind the parties to the dispute. In other words, a court of equity can only provide a remedy that is binding on the parties who are before the court, and cannot provide relief against persons who are not party to the dispute. 

These maxims of equity are fundamental principles that guide the application of equitable remedies in many areas of law, including trusts, property law, and contract law. They serve as a reminder that equitable remedies are intended to provide a fair and just outcome, and that the principles of equity should always guide the application of these remedies. 

Doctrine of Laches and Acquiescence in Intellectual Property

Following this principle of equity in IP-related matters such as trade mark proceedings, any complainant should be vigilant in taking prompt actions in cases of trade mark infringement, breach of the Australian Consumer Law or passing off in order to avoid a situation where the respondent is able to plead the equitable doctrine of delay or laches.  The doctrine of laches can also be applied in intellectual property cases in Australia, particularly in cases where the plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in enforcing their rights.

Key Takeaways

Taking a moment to reflect on your situation is not an obstacle for moving forward with legal action. However, it’s essential to be aware that any behaviour during the waiting period must never be seen as condoning the intolerable conduct leading up to this point. 

In any event, it is vital to obtain legal advice as soon as possible once a dispute arises so that every effort can be made to try resolve the dispute before matters proceed to litigation, and once they do, to make any claim in a timely manner. 

If you have further questions about a current or potential future dispute, contact our experienced team of lawyers, attorneys, and consultants today on 1800 820 083 or by filling out the form on this page. 

Doctrine of Laches FAQs