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. The Tribunal must determine when the relevant means have emerged and whether the status quo agreements suspend or extend the limitation period. 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). 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 language of the treaty did not refer to a strict interpretation of the provision of disclosure – a defendant may insist on concrete wording to that effect if he wishes. It is also relevant that the defendant had already had a substantial advantage at the time of the offence. There is no indication that the defendant settled the claim during the notice period.
The sigh of this construction resulted in the applicant having to break the clause prohibiting them from enacting proceedings earlier in order to avoid the statute of limitations. This was patently absurd – the court does not intend to expose a contract as a party that violates its terms for the agreement to work. Coulson J. considered that the agreement was suspended, which gave the applicant time to initiate proceedings after the expiry of the suspensive period. 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. A status quo agreement is an agreement between all parties to maintain the current state of affairs, including the suspension or extension of a statutory or contractual statute of limitations. The decision to extend or suspend (or refuse) a statute of limitations may have significant practical effects that should be fully considered. The agreement must (i) reflect the appropriate parties, including all parties to the dispute, and (ii) all claims or cases that are the subject of litigation.