OLUSEYE ADEROUNMU v DR DEBORAH COLVIN

OLUSEYE ADEROUNMU v DR DEBORAH COLVIN

The claimant had capacity to litigate at all material times; he acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged negligence by December 2010, so the primary limitation period expired before proceedings were issued. However, considering all circumstances, including the claimant's cognitive impairment, the reasons for delay, and the availability of evidence, it is equitable to allow the action to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Parties
Claimant: Oluseye Aderounmu; Defendant: Dr Deborah Colvin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Limitation and Capacity
Outcome
Claim allowed to proceed out of time under section 33 Limitation Act 1980
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Mental Capacity, Clinical Negligence, Personal Injury
Medical Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Mental Capacity Clinical Negligence Personal Injury

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oluseye Aderounmu

Claimant

Dr Deborah Colvin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Limitation and Capacity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lacked litigation capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 since his stroke in 2009
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had capacity to litigate at all material times; he acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged negligence by December 2010, so the primary limitation period expired before proceedings were issued. However, considering all circumstances, including the claimant's cognitive impairment, the reasons for delay, and the availability of evidence, it is equitable to allow the action to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed to proceed out of time under section 33 Limitation Act 1980

Orders

  • The action is permitted to proceed despite being issued outside the primary limitation period.