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. If the judgment cannot be agreed (for example. B, there is not enough time), an applicant will be subject to proceedings to stop the exploitation of the restriction and thus protect the prescribing position. Such proceedings are then often suspended (i.e. suspended) to allow the investigation to continue and to allow the parties to make progress through other methods of dispute resolution. In the case of the applicants, for example, they had one month from the six-year limitation period during which they had entered into the status quo contracts, a one-month period during which the third status quo agreement had expired, a one-month period. In the case of the defendant, the period for the opening of the proceedings had expired at the end of the third status quo agreement (i.e. November 30, 2016). If the applicants were right, they had made their claims in a timely manner, but if the defendants were right, the applicants were no longer in a timely manner and the claims were prescribed. Last February, the judge, Justice Mostyn, told Cowan/Foreman (2019 WEHC 349 Fam) that he was setting out status quo agreements under inheritance legislation and calling for an end to their use. In this case, he rejected the surviving spouse`s application for leave not to apply for the provision under the law on time, even though the parties had entered into a status quo agreement. As the uncertainty of the COVID 19 pandemic persists, a well-developed status quo agreement can be a practical business strategy in the best interests of both parties and enhance security and progress as the effects of the development of COVID 19 are enhanced. In Exsus Travel Ltd v.
Baker Tilly, counsel for the applicant misinterpreted the functioning of the status quo. The court rejected the argument that an agreement had been reached by agreement – there was no evidence that counsel for the defendant shared the erroneous assumption or was aware of the error. Lord Asplin correctly pointed out that parties who rely on status quo agreements would do so at their own risk, but also stated that “if an application for an extension of time is made at a later date in circumstances where negotiations have failed, if both parties are legally represented, it seems unlikely to me that the court will refuse to accept the approach.”