In the case of the applicants, for example, they had one month from the six-year limitation period during which they had entered into the status quo contracts, a one-month period during which the third status quo agreement had expired, a one-month period. In the case of the defendant, the period for the opening of the proceedings had expired at the end of the third status quo agreement (i.e. November 30, 2016). If the applicants were right, they had made their claims in a timely manner, but if the defendants were right, the applicants were no longer in a timely manner and the claims were prescribed. 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. A status quo agreement can be granted to the applicant`s position with respect to the restriction, either by suspending the time limit or by extending it. Where the status quo agreement has the effect of suspending the period, the applicant has the same time to assert his rights as at the date of the agreement at the end of the status quo period. If the status quo agreement only extends the period, the applicant must initiate proceedings at the end of the status quo period. 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. If the defendant is aware of an error, the court may deny him the benefit of his ruthless behaviour.

This will be the case if the defendant`s lawyer or insurer deliberately encourages the plaintiff to mistakenly believe that he has reached an impasse with the correct defendant (see The Stolt Loyalty). In this case, the tenoriated part of the status quo agreement provided for the suspension of time and also provided that neither party would issue or serve proceedings for the duration of the status quo agreement.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts


Recent Comments

    Blog Submissions for Site

    If you are a friend or family member who would like to submit a Blog Post for publication on this site, please email your post or article to Thank you!

    Scholarship Donors Recognition Wall

    KB2Intuit | Web Design