TheRealMissD
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
When do we look at remoteness & do we ALWAYS use the 'but for' test?

Thanks
0
reply
Nightwish1234
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
(Original post by TheRealMissD)
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.
0
reply
TheRealMissD
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Nightwish1234)
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
0
reply
Nightwish1234
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by TheRealMissD)
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).
0
reply
TheRealMissD
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by Nightwish1234)
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).
Okay, thank you very much
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (187)
5.02%
Uncertainty around my education (545)
14.62%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (417)
11.19%
Lack of purpose or motivation (513)
13.76%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (184)
4.94%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (222)
5.95%
Loneliness (313)
8.4%
Financial worries (138)
3.7%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (145)
3.89%
Exposure to negative news/social media (168)
4.51%
Lack of real life entertainment (212)
5.69%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (333)
8.93%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (351)
9.42%

Watched Threads

View All