Consent Extensions Between the Parties

Cooperation between opponents is cheaper than an application, and most systems encourage it. The question is not whether the other side will agree but whether their agreement has any effect on the deadline in question.

What can usually be agreed

Time for responding to written requests. Deadlines for answering document requests, interrogatories and similar exchanges are commonly left to the parties to arrange between themselves.

Dates for exchanging evidence. Where the timetable sets a step between the parties rather than a step with the forum, agreement is frequently permitted within stated limits.

Extensions of a modest length. Rules that allow agreement often cap it, permitting a short extension by consent and requiring an application for anything longer.

Deadlines with no downstream effect. Where moving one date changes nothing else in the timetable, the case for allowing the parties to arrange it themselves is strongest.

Deposition and examination dates. Arrangements about when and where evidence is taken are usually a matter for the parties to settle among themselves.

The form of a step. Agreement about how something is done, rather than when, is generally uncontroversial and rarely needs approval from anybody.

A short delay while settlement is explored. Systems generally prefer parties to pause and talk rather than to litigate a timetable that neither of them cares about.

Anything the rule expressly permits. The safest category by a distance, because the rule has already answered the question that would otherwise need asking.

What cannot be agreed

Statutory limitation periods. The period for bringing a claim is set by legislation, and shortening or lengthening it privately requires a separate mechanism, per a tolling agreement.

Jurisdictional deadlines. Where a period conditions the forum's authority, no agreement between the parties can create authority that legislation withheld.

Hearing dates. A listed date belongs to the forum, which allocated the time, and moving it requires an application rather than a private arrangement.

Dates the rules expressly protect. Many systems list periods that may not be extended by consent, and the list is usually short and specific.

Deadlines affecting non-parties. Where a date matters to somebody outside the agreement, the parties cannot bind them by agreeing between themselves.

Appeal periods. Almost always statutory, almost never variable by consent, and a frequent source of expensive misunderstanding between cooperative opponents.

Anything with a downstream consequence for the forum. An extension that would put a trial date at risk is not something the parties can arrange privately.

Conditions attached to an earlier order. Where a deadline was imposed as a condition, satisfying it is usually a matter for the forum rather than the opponent.

Getting the agreement right

Put it in writing. An oral agreement about a deadline is worth very little once the person who gave it moves on or remembers the conversation differently.

Identify the deadline precisely. Name the step, the rule or order that set it, and the date it currently expires, so that there is no ambiguity later.

State the new date explicitly. An agreement to extend by two weeks invites an argument about counting; a stated calendar date does not, per how long to ask for.

Say what else is affected. Where the extension moves other steps, the agreement should deal with those too rather than leaving them to be worked out.

Record whether approval is needed. If the rule requires the agreement to be filed or approved, doing that promptly is part of making it effective.

Keep it reciprocal where sensible. Extensions granted are usually extensions received later, and a cooperative record is worth having when a request is genuinely needed.

Avoid open-ended agreements. An extension without an end date is an invitation to drift, and drift is what eventually produces an application anyway.

Circulate it internally. The colleague running the diary needs to know, because an agreement nobody entered is functionally an agreement nobody made.

When approval is still needed

Where the rule says so. Some systems require agreed extensions to be filed or endorsed, and an unfiled agreement may have no procedural effect at all.

Where a fixed date moves. Anything that disturbs a hearing, a pretrial conference or a trial window needs the forum's involvement, whatever the parties think.

Where the extension is long. Rules commonly permit short consent extensions and require an application once a stated threshold is passed.

Where it is the second or third. Cumulative extensions frequently exceed what consent alone can achieve, per a second request for time.

Where the deadline is court-imposed. A date set by an order is generally the forum's to move, even where nobody objects to it moving.

Where a party is unrepresented. Some systems apply additional care to agreements affecting a litigant without representation.

Where the case is subject to active management. Managed cases have timetables built around each other, and private variation undermines the structure.

Where there is any doubt. Filing a short agreed application costs almost nothing and converts an uncertain arrangement into an order.

When the agreement is refused or breaks down

Ask early enough to apply. A request for consent made two days before a deadline leaves no time to apply if the answer is no, or if there is no answer at all.

Keep the correspondence. An unanswered or unreasonably refused request is useful material in the application that follows, per requesting an extension while the period runs.

Apply promptly on refusal. The refusal is the trigger for an application rather than a reason to keep negotiating past the deadline.

Do not rely on a partial agreement. Where the parties agree on some dates and not others, the ones still in dispute need dealing with separately and quickly.

Confirm what was agreed after a call. A short email recording the conversation prevents the agreement evaporating when somebody's recollection changes.

Watch for conditional consent. An agreement given on terms is only worth what the terms allow, and the conditions need reading before they are relied on.

Escalate rather than assume. Silence from an opponent is not consent, and treating it as consent is how deadlines are missed by parties who thought they had cover.

Comply where possible meanwhile. Doing whatever can be done by the original date limits the damage if the extension never materializes.

Many procedural deadlines can be extended by written agreement between the parties, which is cheaper and faster than any application and is actively encouraged by most systems.

Others cannot be varied privately at all: statutory limitation periods, jurisdictional deadlines, listed hearing dates and appeal windows belong to somebody other than the parties.

The distinction is usually visible in the rule that created the deadline, and checking it before relying on an agreement takes minutes rather than the weeks that fixing the mistake takes.

An agreement that works identifies the step and its source, states a specific new date, deals with anything downstream, and is filed or approved wherever the rules require that.

Where consent is refused or simply not answered, the request itself becomes useful material, provided it was made early enough to leave time for an application afterwards.