A Comparative and Analytical Examination of the Effect of Procedural Delay in Litigation under Iranian Law and the Common Law System

Gholami, Negin

doi:10.48311/clr.2025.101688.0

A Comparative and Analytical Examination of the Effect of Procedural Delay in Litigation under Iranian Law and the Common Law System

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Research

Author

Negin Gholami

Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran

10.48311/clr.2025.101688.0

Abstract

Access to competent and impartial courts is a fundamental guarantee of individual rights. Yet, filing a claim after a prolonged delay raises complex procedural questions. Should courts adjudicate merely upon submission, or may undue delay bar admissibility? Common law systems have developed equitable doctrines such as laches and estoppel to counter unjustifiable delay, preventing abuse of process and promoting procedural fairness. These doctrines are entrenched in legal theory and case law, enhancing the efficiency and integrity of adjudication. In contrast, Iranian law—except for limited areas like criminal limitation periods or statutory deadlines—lacks a general rule addressing delayed claims, resulting in inconsistent judgments and judicial congestion. Employing a descriptive‑analytical approach and comparative methodology, this study examines both systems and proposes integrating selected equitable principles within the framework of Imami jurisprudence to establish a fairer and more efficient procedural model

Keywords

delay in filing a lawsuit

laches

estoppel

statute of limitations

abuse of rights

principle of acquiescence (qāʿidat al-iqdām)

Subjects