Is a payment for a medical report respecting a potential plaintiff’s injuries not a payment in respect of that cause of action?

As referenced above, acknowledgements and part payments of debts at common law have been held to restart applicable limitation periods. It was well established that such a part payment had to be on account of the debt for which the action was or would be brought in order to gain the benefit of a deferred limitation period (Tippets v. Heane (1834), 1 Cr. M. & R. 251, 149 E.R. 1074). The relationship between the payment and the debt, or cause of action, was clear; it had to be part payment of the debt. In my view, this requirement underscores the interpretation that any payment in respect of a cause of action must be a payment in respect of the specific debt or damages arising from the cause of action in issue. Accordingly, payment for a medical report respecting a potential plaintiff’s injuries respecting his or her cause of action is not a payment in respect of that cause of action.