Aderounmu v Colvin [2021] EWHC 2293 (QB) (20 August 2021)

Aderounmu v Colvin [2021] EWHC 2293 (QB) (20 August 2021)

On the balance of the expert and factual evidence, the claimant did not lack litigation capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 at any material time after his stroke; the limitation period was not suspended and expired before the claim was issued; there is no sufficient basis to exercise discretion under section 33 Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2293 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Oluseye Aderounmu; Litigation Friend for Claimant: John Edun; Defendant: Dr Deborah Colvin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence / Personal Injury / Preliminary Issue Trial on Limitation and Capacity
Outcome
Claim dismissed as statute-barred
Legal Topics
Litigation Capacity, Limitation Period, Discretionary Extension Under Limitation Act 1980, Retrospective Capacity Assessment, Expert Evidence in Capacity, Section 33 Limitation Act Discretion
Medical Negligence Limitation Law Mental Capacity Litigation Capacity Limitation Period Discretionary Extension Under Limitation Act 1980 Retrospective Capacity Assessment Expert Evidence in Capacity +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oluseye Aderounmu

Claimant

John Edun

Litigation Friend for Claimant

Dr Deborah Colvin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence / Personal Injury / Preliminary Issue Trial on Limitation and Capacity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant lacked litigation capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 from the date of injury, so as to suspend the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether, if the claimant had capacity, the limitation period should be disapplied under section 33 Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the claim is statute-barred

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of the expert and factual evidence, the claimant did not lack litigation capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 at any material time after his stroke; the limitation period was not suspended and expired before the claim was issued; there is no sufficient basis to exercise discretion under section 33 Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as statute-barred

Orders

  • Claim dismissed on grounds of limitation
  • No order for trial of substantive negligence issues