In relation to small firms and offices, the boards have at times dispensed with the requirement for a cross-check (see e.g. J 31/90, T 166/87 of 16 May 1988 date: 1988-05-16, J 11/03, T 1355/09). As to the representative's own responsibility for performing an additional check when receiving the file to deal with, see T 1561/05, T 592/11, R 18/13 as summarised in this chapter III.E.5.5.4 e) "Ultimate responsibility of the representative".

In T 1355/09 the board held that no control mechanism had to be in place because the firm involved was very small and it had not overlooked a time limit, but rather the mistake had been made during payment of the appeal fee, i.e. whilst performing the act needed to observe the time limit. In these circumstances, no control mechanism was required, the likelihood of error being comparatively low. Insisting on one would in practice reduce the time limit: to be effective, any checks would have to be made after payment, but also within the time limit.

In T 166/87 date: 1988-05-16 the board held that in a relatively small office, normally working in an efficient and personal manner, employing normally reliable personnel, a cross-check mechanism, especially in relation to one-off payments such as an appeal fee, could fairly be regarded as superfluous.

In J 31/90 the Legal Board took the view that the system used for observing the time limit, while far from perfect, could be considered in the special circumstances of the case to be normally satisfactory. The system combined the giving of specific oral instructions to the secretary on a case by case basis, with notations on the file to indicate which documents should be filed with the EPO. The board emphasised, however, that the system could only be so considered because of the particular conditions in which the representative and her secretary worked. Over a period of ten years, working together alone in a small office they had built up an excellent working relationship and mutual trust.

In J 11/03 the Legal Board confirmed that the organisational requirements for a generally efficient time-limit monitoring system were subject to variation on account of the firm's size and nature and the number of time limits that had to be monitored. A cross-checking mechanism may in certain circumstances be regarded as superfluous in a small firm employing normally reliable personnel and normally working in an efficient and personal manner, but not in a large company with its own patent department (T 166/87 date: 1988-05-16). The appellant was a very small firm with a commercial division essentially comprising only the commercial manager and the book-keeper. In the circumstances additional checking that payments had actually been made might be deemed superfluous without impairing the functioning of the system.