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). Given the manner in which the agreement was drafted, the suspension of the statute of limitations would mean that the procedure would be adopted before the expiry of the relevant limitation period, whereas an extension of the statute of limitations would imply a limitation of the law. As part of a status quo agreement, the potential plaintiff and the defendant agree to suspend the limitation period and/or extend the limitation period, as a general rule, to allow for further investigation and to consider the possibility of a solution. There is a significant difference between suspending the term for a specified period and extending the statute of limitations to a given date: Elton John sings on his “Farewell Yellow Brick Road” tour I`m Still Standing and it seems that even civil disputes in England and Wales are still in place after a recent Court of Appeal decision limiting the “Stillstill” agreements. The Tribunal must determine when the relevant means have emerged and whether the status quo agreements suspend or extend the limitation period. However, where a status quo agreement is considered the most appropriate option, efforts should be made to ensure that the parties explicitly agree on the expected effects of the non-status quo (i.e., suspend or extend the time limit for the purposes of the restriction) and that the text of the status quo agreement clearly and systematically reflects that intention. The status quo agreements contained recitals indicating that the purpose of the agreements was to extend the period during which applicants could initiate proceedings. On the other hand, the operational provisions of the status quo agreements dealt with the “suspension” of time and the “suspension of time”. The applicants referred to the operational provisions and argued that the status quo agreements had resulted in the suspension of the limitation period, while the parties drew attention to the recitals (and certain other factors) and argued that the status quo agreements only lengthened the time frame.
While status quo agreements are commonplace in dispute resolution, they are not without complexity. The case is now pending before the Court of Appeal, which authorized the late opening of the proceedings and made the following observations in order to support the status quo agreements duly drawn up: – suspension of the freezing period – therefore, if there were 30 days left at the time of the status quo agreement to rule on a procedure, the applicant would have that time to initiate the proceedings at the end of the statute of limitations. The extension means that the applicant can initiate proceedings until the end, but not after the time limit of the capital contract. If the statute of limitations is extended – the statute of limitations usually expires on the date the renewal period expires. This is usually a date that was later than the date of the end of the original limitation period, but this type of agreement can also be used for breach of a contract executed as acts must be executed within 12 years, while infringement claims must be commenced within six years of the reason for the prosecution; In cases of negligence, this is usually the case when physical injury occurs. In her judgment, Mostyn J said: “I was told that it was “usual practice” to agree to such an agreement. If this is a common practice, I suggest that it is a practice that should cease immediately.