The full library in alphabetical order, across every area of law.
Expedite requests are granted on stated criteria, commonly severe financial loss, an emergency, a humanitarian situation, an error by the deciding body, or a compelling public interest. Delay alone is rarely sufficient. A request built on a recognized ground, supported by documents and asking for a specific outcome, succeeds where a general account of hardship does not.
Reconsideration allows the body that made a decision to correct or revisit it, usually on limited grounds: a clear error, a material fact overlooked, a change in circumstances or a manifest injustice. It is faster and cheaper than an appeal and it is not a route for re-arguing the merits. Whether it suspends the appeal period is the critical question.
Applications to move a hearing are assessed on whether the move is necessary, how early it was sought, whether the other parties agree, and what happens to the wider timetable. A request made weeks in advance with an agreed alternative date is routine; the same request made a few days before is a contested application with poor prospects.
Insolvency processes commonly impose an automatic stay that stops proceedings and enforcement against the debtor from the moment of filing. It protects the debtor and the estate rather than the parties around them, does not usually extend to co-defendants or guarantors, and simultaneously starts a set of short creditor deadlines that begin running immediately and are easily missed.
Where a representative or a party is required in two places simultaneously, the conflict is usually resolved by which matter was listed first, by the relative importance of the hearings, and by whether alternative arrangements can cover one of them. The essential step is raising it immediately, because a conflict reported the week before is a scheduling matter and one reported on the day is a failure to appear.
Some periods run through weekends and holidays and some skip them, and the distinction is usually drawn by the length of the period or stated expressly in the rule. Getting it wrong on a short period is the single most common counting error, because the wrong convention produces a plausible date rather than an obviously absurd one.
Fraudulent concealment postpones or suspends a limitation period where the defendant took steps to hide the claim from the person entitled to bring it. Active concealment is usually required, mere silence is generally not enough unless a duty to disclose existed between the parties, and the claimant must still have acted diligently once the concealment came to an end.
Many procedural deadlines can be extended by written agreement between the parties, within limits set by the rules. Others were fixed by the forum or by statute and cannot be varied privately, however cooperative everybody is. Distinguishing the two categories before relying on an agreement is the whole of the exercise, and the distinction is usually stated in the rule that created the deadline.
Where conduct repeats or continues, systems answer the limitation question in three ways: a single period from the first act, a single period from the last, or a fresh period for each act. The characterization decides how much of a long-running claim survives, and it usually turns on whether each occurrence caused its own harm.
Alternative filing routes remain available in many systems: after-hours drop boxes, courier delivery, counter filing and occasionally fax. Each carries conditions about timing, proof and follow-up, and each is most likely to be needed on an evening when there is no time to research it. Establishing what is permitted in advance is the practical value of knowing about them at all.
Where one party appeals, another may wish to challenge parts of the decision that went against them. That cross-appeal has its own deadline, frequently measured from service of the first notice rather than from the decision, and frequently shorter. Failing to file one leaves a respondent able to defend the decision but not to improve upon it.
A jurisdictional time limit conditions the authority of the forum. It cannot be waived, extended, tolled or forfeited, a decision-maker must apply it whether or not anybody raises it, and lateness ends the matter outright. Distinguishing jurisdictional limits from ordinary claim-processing rules is difficult and consequential.
