Ramise-Edwards v Idowu & Anor

Ramise-Edwards v Idowu & Anor

The 20 August 2014 email, when read objectively and in context with related correspondence, constituted a written acknowledgment by the defendant of a debt owed to the claimant, thereby refreshing the limitation period under section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. The claim was therefore not statute-barred. The defendant's agency argument was rejected as unsupported by the evidence.

Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: Idris Ramise-Edwards; First Defendant/appellant: Kolawole Babatunde Idowu; Second Defendant/second Respondent: Patrick Okonmah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part, allowed only to the extent of reducing the defendant's liability by £8,303 with pro rata reduction of interest.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Acknowledgment of Debt, Agency, Appeal Review
Contract Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Acknowledgment of Debt Agency Appeal Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idris Ramise-Edwards

Claimant/first Respondent

Kolawole Babatunde Idowu

First Defendant/appellant

Patrick Okonmah

Second Defendant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim was brought within the relevant limitation period or was time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's email constituted a written acknowledgment under section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's liability should be reduced by a payment made to a third party

Ratio Decidendi

The 20 August 2014 email, when read objectively and in context with related correspondence, constituted a written acknowledgment by the defendant of a debt owed to the claimant, thereby refreshing the limitation period under section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. The claim was therefore not statute-barred. The defendant's agency argument was rejected as unsupported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part, allowed only to the extent of reducing the defendant's liability by £8,303 with pro rata reduction of interest.

Orders

  • The defendant's liability to the claimant is reduced by £8,303 with a pro rata reduction of interest.
  • The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.