Legal Definitions - precludi non debet

Precludi non debet is a historical Latin legal phrase that translates to "he ought not to be barred." In legal practice, it was traditionally used by a plaintiff (the individual or entity initiating a lawsuit) to formally object to a defendant's attempt to completely stop their case from proceeding.

This objection would be made in response to what was known as a "plea in bar." A plea in bar is a defense raised by the defendant that, if successful, would entirely prevent the plaintiff's lawsuit from moving forward, often due to a legal technicality, a prior resolution of the issue, or a fundamental flaw in the plaintiff's right to sue. By asserting "precludi non debet," the plaintiff was essentially arguing that there was no valid legal reason to prevent their case from being heard and decided on its merits.

• Example 1: Statute of Limitations Defense

  Imagine a scenario where a plaintiff sues a construction company for damages resulting from faulty workmanship. The construction company (defendant) files a "plea in bar," arguing that the plaintiff waited too long to file the lawsuit, exceeding the legally prescribed time limit (known as the statute of limitations). The plaintiff, believing that the statute of limitations does not apply in their specific circumstances, or that the time limit was paused for a valid reason, would historically respond with "precludi non debet." This signifies their formal objection to being prevented from pursuing their claim based on the defendant's argument about the filing deadline.

• Example 2: Prior Judgment (Res Judicata)

  Consider a dispute between two businesses over a contract. Business A sues Business B for breach of contract. Business B (defendant) files a "plea in bar," asserting that the exact same contractual issue was already litigated and decided in a previous court case between the two businesses, and therefore, the current lawsuit should be stopped (a legal principle known as res judicata). If Business A believes that the previous case did not fully address the specific aspects of their current claim, or that new facts have emerged that warrant a new review, they would historically invoke "precludi non debet" to argue against being barred from litigating their current dispute.

• Example 3: Lack of Legal Standing

  Suppose a group of environmental activists files a lawsuit against a government agency for approving a development project, claiming it will harm a local ecosystem. The government agency (defendant) files a "plea in bar," arguing that the activists lack "standing" – meaning they haven't demonstrated a direct, personal, and legally recognized harm from the project that would give them the right to sue. The activists, believing they are indeed directly affected and have a legitimate legal interest in challenging the decision, would historically use "precludi non debet" to assert their right to have their case heard and not be prevented from challenging the government's action.