Ramise-Edwards v Idowu & Anor

An appeal is a review, not a rehearing. For limitation purposes, a written acknowledgement under sections 29(5) and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980 must acknowledge both indebtedness and legal liability to pay the claim. Whether it does so is a question of objective construction. The statement must be read as a whole and in context. Extrinsic evidence may identify the debt and link related documents. An email referring to repayments under an identified loan may amount to a personal acknowledgement despite ambiguity in some passages.

The claimant advanced £350,000 to the defendant in 2008 and later sued for the unpaid balance. The defendant argued that the claim was statute-barred and that he had received the money only as agent for a third party. The County Court at Central London held that a signed email sent on 20 August 2014 acknowledged the debt and refreshed the limitation period, entering judgment for £45,778.21.

The appeal concerned whether the email objectively acknowledged the defendant’s own indebtedness and legal liability, and whether the court below had impermissibly relied on extrinsic evidence.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent agreed by the claimant: the defendant’s liability was reduced by £8,303, with a pro rata reduction of interest. The limitation ground was dismissed.

1. Under CPR 52.21, the appeal was a review rather than a rehearing. The appellate court could interfere only if the county court’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. For section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 to apply, the debtor must acknowledge both indebtedness and legal liability to pay the claim. The question is one of construction, and the statement must be read as a whole.
3. Extrinsic evidence may identify the debt, ascertain its amount and link documents. Reading the email with the earlier correspondence and repayment schedule was permissible. Ambiguity in parts of the email did not prevent it from constituting an acknowledgement when objectively construed.
4. The email acknowledged a debt owed personally by the defendant. References to reimbursement by the third party did not communicate that the third party was legally liable to the claimant. The county court was therefore entitled to reject the agency argument and hold that the claim was not statute-barred.

1. High Court (Queen's Bench Division) — Appeal against the order of HHJ Saggerson at the County Court at Central London dated 21 May 2019. The order was varied only as to the monetary liability.
2. County Court at Central London — The claim was held not to be statute-barred, and judgment was entered for £45,778.21.