The defendants provided survey and project management services for the applicants` construction project. The project was marred by difficulties for which the complainants held the accused accountable. The parties entered into three status quo agreements, the third of which expired on November 30, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the applicants proceeded to proceeding against the defendants. The defendants argued that the claims were prescribed. In Russell, the parties did not understand the structure and intent of the practical law proposition. The proposal suspends the limitation period, so that the parties are in the same position as they were when they entered into the agreement at the end of the status quo period. If they had one month before the statute of limitations expired, they would still have one month at the end of the status quo period. «I agree with Asplin LJ that, if the final decision still belongs to the Tribunal where there is a properly proven agreement, against which the executors and beneficiaries did not raise an objection, it is unlikely that a proper judge will reject an application for an extension of time. The fact that counsel based the third status quo agreement on a proposal based on the principle of time suspension based on the applicants` position (despite serial differences from the original). «I have been told that it is common practice to enter into a status quo agreement of this type, so I suggest that this is a practice that should be completed immediately. It is not an expert that should be done in court… If the applicant requests an agreement shortly before the statute of limitations expires, the delay may be problematic.
Even if the conditions are definitively established, all the formal conditions agreed by the parties, such as the signing, dating and restitution of the contract, cannot be met until the critical date. Status quo agreements are often used in litigation. It is not possible for the court to extend the limitation period in advance. Moreover, apart from the areas of assault and defamation, there is no room for appreciation to extend the restriction. Therefore, in cases where the restriction is approaching, but the applicant is not willing to initiate proceedings, consideration should be given to concluding a moratorium or status quo agreement. If the parties disagree on the importance or effectiveness of their status quo agreement and the defendant`s case is correct, the applicant may argue that the defendant is deterred from availing himself of his contractual rights. This can occur if there is a common acceptance of the importance of the agreement (called Estoppel by convention) or if the defendant exploited the plaintiff`s overt error in an unfair operation. This summer, the courts argued in two cases over the importance of certain status quo agreements – Russell v Stone and Muduroglu against Stephenson Harward. We examine the common pitfalls that the parties should be following in the management of status quo agreements. The case is now pending before the Court of Appeal, which authorized the late initiation of proceedings and made the following observations in support of the duly developed status quo agreements:- These recent cases give the impression that the conclusion of a status quo agreement is difficult, but that agreements corresponding to the needs of both parties are concluded every day.