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. Contracting parties often enter into status quo agreements as they approach the expiry of a limitation period. This case shows the difference between the suspension of time and the lengthening of time for the purposes of the statute of limitations in a status quo agreement. With respect to interpretation, the Tribunal found that the status quo agreement had suspended time, so that the remainder of the limitation period continued after the expiry of the status quo agreement. Although the court does not deprive applicants of the possibility of (1) Stuart Howard Russell (2) Naomi Patricia Russell v (1) Peter Stone (2) PSP Consultants Limited (3) PSP Consultants Limited (3) PSP Consultants (a firm)   EWHC 1555 (TCC). 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). 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.
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. Any status quo agreement has prevented the parties from adopting a procedure in the currency of this agreement. Therefore, the applicants could not legitimately initiate proceedings until 30 November 2016 without violating the terms of the third status quo agreement. If the terms of the agreement are not clear, the courts will apply the rules of interpretation recently clarified by the Supreme Court of Wood/Capita Insurance Service Ltd. The defendant argued that the agreement had extended the limitation period, so that one day after the expiry of the status quo period was not a procedure; These recent cases give the impression that it is difficult to reach a status quo agreement, but that agreements that meet the needs of both parties are concluded every day. Other problems may arise if the parties do not reach an agreement. The case of Cowan v Foreman (as executor) and other FD18F00079 is a contested estate right when the wife of the deceased claims his estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.
The property was estimated to be worth nearly $16 million at the time of death. Under Section 4 of the 1975 Act, an application cannot be made after the six-month period from the date of the grant of the estate has expired, unless the Court has authorized it. Here, the right was issued almost 17 months after the 6-month period expired, but part of that 17 months was the subject of a status quo agreement.