In this case, the language of the treaty did not refer to a strict interpretation of the provision of disclosure – a defendant may insist on concrete wording to that effect if he wishes. It is also relevant that the defendant had already had a substantial advantage at the time of the offence. There is no indication that the defendant settled the claim during the notice period. The effect of a status quo agreement containing a clause stipulating that neither party would initiate proceedings during the currency of the agreement was recently discussed at Muduroglu (in which the judgment was issued on 28 July 2017). In this regard, the applicants commenced proceedings before the expiry of the status quo period, as it is a “procedural risk approach” of leaving the case until the last minute. The applicants argued that this was a violation of the status quo agreement, which resulted in the applicants not being allowed to invoke the suspension of the time limit at all and that the claim was prescribed. With respect to the facts before him, the judge (Mark Cawson QC) interpreted the corresponding clause of the status quo agreement as an unmentioned term and not a condition. He also concluded that the breach of the clause would not amount to rejecting the status quo contract or “the root of the contract”. In other words, the applicants were successful (although several parts of the claim were removed for other reasons or subject to summary decision). The defendants provided survey and project management services for the applicants` construction project. The project was marred by difficulties for which the complainants held the accused accountable.
The parties entered into three status quo agreements, the third of which expired on November 30, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the applicants proceeded to proceeding against the defendants. The defendants argued that the claims were prescribed. Parties to the dispute may decide to enter into a status quo agreement if they are about to expire, but the plaintiff is not yet willing to assert his rights (because, for example, the parties are in negotiations that, if successful, would prevent any recourse).