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). The concept of a status quo agreement refers to different forms of agreements that companies can enter into to delay actions that could be taken otherwise. Any status quo agreement has prevented the parties from adopting a procedure in the currency of this agreement. Therefore, the applicants could not legitimately initiate proceedings until 30 November 2016 without violating the terms of the third status quo agreement. 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. Two scenarios can lead to abuse of process in this context. The first, illustrated by Lewis v Ward Hadaway, was caused by a cash flow problem in the face of rising court costs. The defendants refused to enter into a status quo agreement, so the complainants had to cover the time to protect the time before receiving compensation to pay the court costs. The plaintiffs` lawyers paid the costs themselves.
In order to reduce court costs, they place lower values on claim forms on claim forms that are lower than those the applicants wanted to claim. They then changed application forms and paid the higher expenses before they sent the application forms. This has been described as an abuse of process. The differences of opinion are due to two opposing interpretations of the relevant party of the status quo agreement, recital B, which provided that the applicant had not had to initiate proceedings on the day or before the last day of the last status quo agreement (the judge rejected an argument that the use of the word “up to” in the agreement was and not included until the last day of the last non-status quo agreement).