Remoteness

When do we look at remoteness & do we ALWAYS use the 'but for' test?

Thanks

Hi, can I assume this is in tort law?
You must always consider remoteness when establishing a causal link between the defendants breach of duty and the claimants loss. Usually the but for test is sufficient, but it is worth having a look at Khan v Meadows [2019] EWCA Civ 152 which recently reviewed this test - it is insufficient to merely establish a link between the breach of duty and type of injury, one must also demonstrate a causal link between the breach and the particular type of loss claimed.

Yep this is Tort Law, please could you elaborate on 'establishing a casual link' and thank you so much

I meant when deciding causation - as negligence you must establish a duty, breach of the duty, actual loss, and that this was caused by the breach. For example, in Khan v Meadows, had the mother known that her child carried the autism gene, she would not have continued her pregnancy. Under a simple 'but for' test, the child would not have been born but for the defendants negligence, and the claimant would not have a child with these disabilities.
The test for causation, however, is a little more complex than this, and can be found in SAAMco - you need to show that the damage actually lies within the extent of the defendants liability. Damages outside of this will be too remote.
Therefore, was the kind of damage suffered reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of breach of duty? (It doesn't matter that the extent of the damage was unforeseeable).