I had to look the ninth Affirmative defence up: It seems a very useful and reasonable defence.
Laches (/ˈlætʃɨz/, LA-chəz, like "latches"; /ˈleɪtʃɨz/, LAY-chəz; Law French: "remissness", "slackness", from Old French laschesse)[1][2][3]
is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim... in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party".[1] When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.[4] The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, witnesses and/or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, and circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff's original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. Laches is associated with one of the maxims of equity:
I had to look up the thirteenth affirmative defence as well. I guess 13 is Wade's unlucky number. Is this (collection of defences) what is known as 'throwing the book' at someone??
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel often come into play when a subsequent case, similar to a case already adjudicated, is filed. The rationale behind the doctrines is that an issue or cause of action fully litigated should not be litigated again. Res judicata is often referred to as "claim preclusion". Collateral estoppel is often referred to as "issue preclusion".
Res judicata is raised when a party thinks that a particular claim was already, or could have been, litigated and therefore, should not be litigated again. When addressing a res judicata argument, a court will usually look at three factors. First, the court will consider whether there was previous litigation in which identical claims were raised, or in which identical claims could have been raised. The second factor to be considered is that the parties must be the same parties as those who litigated the original action. The third factor is that the original action must have received final judgment on the merits.
Collateral estoppel arises when the claim (cause of action) at the bar has not been litigated, but the exact issue that is now before the court has been raised and litigated in an earlier action or proceeding. Collateral estoppel is a bit different than res judicata, although the rationale is the same – it is a tool to prevent re-litigation of issues already litigated. See U.S. v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280, 285 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The collateral estoppel doctrine provides that ‘when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.’ ”
.
