Standstill Agreement Extension

where the period is inhibited – the part of the limitation period which has not yet expired at the time of the agreement usually starts again after the expiry of the period of suspension – the operational provisions repeatedly concerned the suspension of the period: the only mention of the extension of the period was in the recitals. There was no contradiction between the description in the recitals of the applicants` wish to have more time for the opening of the procedure (i.e. to extend the time limit) and the mechanism for achieving that objective (i.e. the suspension of time). If an objection had occurred, the operational provisions would have prevailed over the recitals. 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. A standstill agreement is an agreement by all parties to maintain current facts, including the suspension or extension of a legal or contractual limitation period. The decision to extend or suspend a limitation period (or to oppose it) may have important practical consequences that should be fully taken into account. The agreement (i) must reflect the right parties, including all parties to the dispute, and (ii) all claims or cases. .

. .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by admin. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.