You need to know directness and remoteness of damage. If you're lucky I guess you might be able to avoid Fairchild etc, i.e. the but for cases; though obviously you should know Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington on the very basic rule.
There's a 2 page spread in Lunney and Oliphant which I think sums up enough of remoteness to allow you to scrape a 2.i. on that part of the question. I would suggest you spend a couple of hours at least on novus actus this evening, though you might get away with just knowing the following:
The Oropesa--there must be something "ultroneous" to break the chain of causation. Something unwarranted. The test is very vague, so this is blaggable. Stansbie v Troman--the act of a third party will not break the chain of causation where the duty is to guard against that very act. Reeves v MPC The deliberate act of the claimant won't break the chain of causation where the duty is to guard against that very act, although such a duty is very rare.
Again, I suggest you spend a couple of hours on this tonight, but those are the absolute basics whiich I'd've thought to be most likely to come up.
note: this is all based on my exams. Maybe yours mix issues less, I don't know. I know for sure I wouldn't want to risk going through a tort exam without knowing causation. Negligence is by far the most important part of the course, and causation necessarily comes up in negligence questions.
edit: occupiers' liability questions could well involve questions of causation.
Last edited by TimmonaPortella; 15-05-2012 at 20:25.