In the applicants` case, if they had one month left, for example, of the six-year limitation period they had set when concluding the standstill agreements, they still had a period of one month at the expiry of the third standstill agreement. In the defendant`s case, the procedural period expired at the end of the third standstill agreement (i.e. on 30 November 2016). If the claimants were right, they had to assert their rights in a timely manner, but if the defendants were right, the claimants were not in time and the claims were time-barred. Potential beneficiaries should carefully assess their possibilities when approaching the expiry of a limitation period. Coulson J observed that status quo agreements are becoming more frequent and noted that he had “the overwhelming feeling that they may just be a self-inflicted complication.” He suggested that if the statute of limitations is an issue and it takes longer to work, the claimants should instead consider initiating the proceedings within the statute of limitations and applying for a stay. The Australian collection Collection House Ltd. has entered into a status quo agreement with its lenders, as it is conducting an extensive recapitalization process. Australian Collection House enters into status quo agreement with lenders Judge Coulson found that status quo agreements have become much more day-to-day than before and established that its underlying purpose was to allow plaintiffs and defendants to conduct regular research before proceedings began and thus promote settlement. Despite this noble intention, he also felt that he had “the overwhelming feeling that they may be just a self-inflicted complication. Where the statute of limitations is problematic and the claim requires additional work or the pre-trial report has not been activated or completed, the TCC (Technology and Construction Court) guide is very clear: paragraph 2.3.2 states that the applicant may initiate proceedings and request a six-month stay, for example, to follow and complete the record. “− The fact that the lawyers based the third standstill agreement on a proposal based on the principle of maturity supported the plaintiffs` position (despite serial derogations from the original). – 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. This view does not only apply to applications within the meaning of the Succession Act. For example, in the previous case, Russell and another against Stone (t/a PSP Consultants) and others  EWHC 1555 (TCC) (hereinafter Russell v Stone), which was tried before the Technology and Construction Court, stated that instead of a standstill agreement, a better approach might be to initiate proceedings and then apply for a stay, to follow and close the minutes procedure before the trial. Often, in the event of a sickness claim, the claimant is about to be prescribed when they hire lawyers. This results in a very short period of time for the parties to investigate and make pre-process decisions. Under these conditions, the parties often agree on so-called limitation or standstill agreements. However, these agreements can create more problems than they will solve if they are not treated carefully. Status quo contracts are often negotiated and concluded under time pressure, often because a complaining client was advised at the eleventh hour. . .