Download The Doctrine of Laches: Statutory Application and Silence in Sri Lankan and English Law and more Schemes and Mind Maps Law in PDF only on Docsity! SILHOUETTE 2014·-2015 How Time Matters in Sri Lanka and England Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt NKK Mudalige Faculty of Law, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Ratmalana, Sri Lanka As Lord Camden LC said in Smith vs. Clay ((1767) 3 Bro CC 639 at page 640) Equity will not assist a plaintiff who has failed to assert his right within a reasonable time. The maxim "Delay Defeats Equity" is identified as the foundation of the equitable defense of laches. Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party obtaining an equitable remedy is technically called laches (Snell, 1982). Statutory provisions may supply time limit for the commencement of legal proceedings. But not all equitable relief is governed by such legislation. Therefore the doctrine of laches applies in such situ ations. This maxim states that equity will not protect the claimant's rights if the court concludes that claimant has allowed too much time to lapse between wrongdoing and the commencement of legal proceedings. It can be identified as a defence against the plaintiff. Applicability of the maxim in Sri Lanka and England will be discussed in this Article under following topics: i) Statutory Application of the maxim ii) Application of "Laches" when statutes are silent i) Statutory application of the maxim Applicability of the maxim under English Law can be identified in statutory provisions of Limitation Act of 1980. Statute of Limitation 1980 expressly covers the time limits for claims by cestuis que trust to recover trust property or in respect of any breach of trust, claims by any breach of trust, claims to the personal estate of a deceased person and claims by mortqaqees and mortgagors of land. Also for claims which the statute is covered analogically, the court may refuse to grant equitable remedy when it is delayed. In Ronex Properties v John Laing Construction ((1983) QB 393) it was stated that 'It is trite law that the English Limitation Acts bar the remedy and not the right, and furthermore, that they do not even have this effect unless and until pleaded'. It is noteworthy that if a plaintiff didn't plead the relief between given time under Limitation Act, the court can upheld the maxim Delay defeats equity as the plaintiff was late to commence legal proceedings and the· court may ignore to declare relief. Correspond to Limitation Act of 1980, Sri Lankan application of the maxim covers partly by Prescription Ordinance No 2 of 1889 (as amended in 2008) which provides time limits to commence legal proceedings in some areas of law. Term limits can be indicated as of prescription for lands or immovable property (Section 3), time limit for possessory action (Section 4 ), claims for mortgage/ debt or bond (Section 5), claims for breach of partnership (Section 6) etc. It is evident that when compared to English jurisdiction regarding the applicability of maxim "Delay defeats equity" with Sri Lankan jurisdiction in statutes, they cover many similar areas. For instance both statutes cover prescribed period for claims of mortgages. Similarly both statutes do not cover some areas i.e. statutes do not impose a time limit to some selected areas. Rights in conversion are extinguished by lapse of time (section 3 of Limitation Act 1980) and rights under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 are barred by the ten-year long stop (section 11 A (3) of Limitation Act 1980) and section 15 of Prescription Ordinance has expressed that the ordinance shall not affect state or causes matrimonial. Such similarities can be pointed out with regard to the similar applica tion of the maxim in two jurisdictions.
