“My impression is that, although the judge correctly concluded that Parliament has decided that the power to extend the six-month period rests with the Tribunal and that any agreement not to delay a point cannot be binding without the need to encourage negotiations and not the issue of procedure. While the potential applicant must take a risk if an application for an extension of time is made at a later date in cases where negotiations have failed, where both parties were legally represented, it seems unlikely to me that the court will refuse to accept this approach. (Lady Justice Asplin). The Court is therefore more concerned with the merits of an appeal than with the reasons for the late action. It should also be noted that a short delay can be fatal if the merits of the claim are insufficient or if there is another reason for refusing permission to proceed. In re Hendry (2019) was denied action despite being only two months late because there was (1) a pre-marital agreement that excluded her recovery in the event of a divorce (which had taken place) and (2) she could sue her lawyers in time for non-delivery of the 1975 law. Ms. Cowan appealed Justice Innyn`s decision and the Court of Appeal has now ruled in her favour. The judge condemned the parties agreeing on a moratorium for negotiations and said the status quo agreements “should be terminated immediately. It is not for the parties to give time to the court.7 Instead, the judge recommended that the claims be made in a timely manner and that the court be invited to the stay proceedings for the purposes of the hearing.
With respect to the first part, the judge considered the Tribunal`s priority objective, including CPR1.1 (d) (d) (f) and “evolving sanctions jurisprudence” in accord with Denton`s principles3. In defiance of the moratorium period, the judge concluded that there was no valid reason for the “very significant” 13-month delay after the expiry of the limitation period.4 A status quo agreement can only maintain the position at the time of the agreement, so it is important that potential complainants review their claims as quickly as possible and , if so, that they consider it legal when it comes to the statute of limitations and the steps available to protect their position. One of these steps is to seek a status quo agreement and recent submissions by the Court of Appeal will encourage trial parties as they approach the expiry of their limitation period. The applicants will welcome the submissions of the judges of the Court of Appeal. When awarding a judicial procedure, a large judicial fee is often levied and, once the procedure has been rendered, it is submitted to the Court`s timetable and, in the absence of a suspension agreement, it must be served within the time frame provided by the Code of Civil Procedure (BGB). Once a right is served, the plaintiff becomes a risk of adverse costs and can expect to bear the defendant`s costs if the claim is withdrawn or subsequently dismissed. There are other factors that may deter a party from initiating proceedings, including the publicity of proceedings and the escalation of litigation.