When the applicants entered into the third status quo agreement, they still had more than three weeks to initiate proceedings. If the defendant`s position is correct and the applicants were no longer at the time of the expiry of the third status quo agreement, the applicants risked losing their right of appeal under the conclusion of the agreement. The status quo agreement was intended to preserve the rights not to risk their loss. In light of the Tribunal`s submissions, it would be important if a safeguard procedure was not adapted to a given scenario and that the parties were willing to get bogged down, would it be important for the parties to consider the importance of the agreement to suspend or extend the limitation period? The Tribunal found that the effect of the agreements was suspensive and that, therefore, the procedure had been adopted in a timely manner. The judge`s suggestion that non-status quo agreements constitute a „self-inflicted complication“ in construction disputes was highlighted. He felt that it was much more appropriate when it came to limitation, just expose the procedure and omit it. Complications arise for prescribing purposes when, for example. B the chain of project agreements has a mixture of deeds and contracts and, therefore, the statute of limitations is different. If the parties disagree on the importance or effectiveness of their status quo agreement and the defendant`s case is correct, the applicant may argue that the defendant is deterred from availing himself of his contractual rights. This can occur if there is a common acceptance of the importance of the agreement (called Estoppel by convention) or if the defendant exploited the plaintiff`s overt error in an unfair operation.
This scenario shows that rapid action may be necessary for the parties to meet their requirements. In these cases, the restriction may be addressed by parties entering into a status quo agreement or by an applicant who initiates a „safeguard procedure“. In a recently closed case, Russell-Anor/Stone  EWHC 1555 (TCC), for example, the Technology and Construction Tribunal had to consider a „standard“ agreement to determine whether the agreement had suspended or extended the limitation period. A status quo agreement between a lender and a borrower may also exist when the lender stops requiring a planned interest or capital payment for a loan to give the borrower time to restructure its debts. The Tribunal must determine when the relevant means have emerged and whether the status quo agreements suspend or extend the limitation period. The status quo agreement buys time for both parties. What is less useful is that the parties (usually their lawyers) have to negotiate and enter into a contract at a time when they are gathering evidence and considering the substance of the dispute. If there is more than one defendant, the plaintiff will want to agree with all the identical status quo agreements.
Even if all the accused are willing to play ball, which they may not be, the complainants often end up with several subsequent chords and variations as time passes.