For more details on the problems that arose with Russell v Stone, see News Analysis: Coming soon: Claim not statuteed although the status quo agreement is poorly worded (Russell v Stone (trade as PSP Consultants)). Home / Insights / Limitation periods and status quo agreements: how can they affect your rights? – Any standstill agreement shall prevent the Parties from initiating proceedings during the currency of this Agreement. Consequently, the applicants were not entitled to initiate proceedings before 30 November 2016 without infringing the provisions of the third standstill agreement. Elton John sings „I`m Still Standing“ on his Farewell Yellow Brick Road tour, and it appears that the parties to the civil lawsuit in England and Wales are still in place following a recent Court of Appeal decision supporting restraint agreements. The complainants welcome the comments of the judges of the Court of Appeal. The order of court proceedings is often subject to significant legal costs and, once the proceedings have been rendered, they are subject to the timetable of the Court of Justice and, in the absence of a suspension agreement, they must be served within the time limits laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Once a claim has been served, the claimant expects a risk of adverse costs and can expect the costs to be borne by the defendant if the claim is subsequently closed or dismissed. There are other factors that may prevent a party from initiating proceedings, including the publication of the proceedings and the escalation of the dispute. The standstill agreement expands the possibility for the parties to consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and try to resolve their dispute outside of the judicial process. There are different ADR options, including mediation and arbitration.

Sometimes a claim can only be resolved by going to court, but the comments of the Judge of the Court of Appeal should encourage the use of ADR. The standstill agreements contained recitals indicating that the purpose of the agreements was to extend the period during which the applicants could bring legal proceedings. In contrast, the operational provisions of the status quo agreements dealt with the „suspension“ of time and the „suspension of time“. The applicants referred to the provisions of the operative part and argued that the standstill agreements resulted in a suspension of the limitation period, while the defendants referred to the recitals (and certain other factors), arguing that the standstill agreements were intended only to extend the time limit. Under a standstill agreement, the potential claimant and the defendant agree to suspend the limitation period and/or extend the limitation period, generally to allow for further investigations and to consider the possibility of a solution. However, if a standstill agreement is considered the most appropriate option, efforts should be made to ensure that the parties explicitly agree on the intended effect of the judgment (i.e. whether it suspends or extends the time limit for the purposes of the limitation period) and that the text of the standstill agreement clearly and consistently reflects that intention. The parties to the dispute may opt for the conclusion of a standstill agreement if they are approaching the expiry of the limitation period, but the claimant is not yet prepared to assert its rights (for example, because the parties are in negotiations which, if successful, would prevent a claim from having to be made). A standstill agreement can only maintain the position at the time of the conclusion of the contract, so it is important that potential claimants consider their claims as soon as possible and, where appropriate, have recourse to legal advice at the statute of limitations and available measures to protect their position.

One such measure is to seek a standstill agreement and the Court of Appeal`s recent observations will encourage parties to the trial who are approaching the expiry of their statute of limitations. . . .