Causation CASES

In English law, causation refers to the essential connection between the defendant’s actions and the claimant’s loss or harm, a necessary element to establish legal liability, particularly in tort and contract.

Definition and principles

Causation determines whether the defendant’s actions directly resulted in the claimant’s harm or loss. It involves two key concepts:

• Factual causation: established through the “but-for” test—whether the harm would have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct.
• Legal causation (remoteness): limits liability to consequences reasonably foreseeable from the defendant’s actions.

Key tests and approaches

• But-for test: Primary test for factual causation, assessing whether harm would have happened without the defendant’s act.
• Material contribution: Used where multiple factors contribute to the harm, allowing liability even without sole causation.

Case example: Barton v Armstrong (1973)

Barton v Armstrong addressed causation in duress cases. The Privy Council held that if threats influenced the claimant’s decision—even if not the sole cause—the threats would be sufficient to establish causation, highlighting the broader approach in some contexts.

Breaking the chain (Novus actus interveniens)

A defendant may escape liability if an unforeseeable event (novus actus interveniens) breaks the chain of causation, showing that the claimant’s harm was not directly attributable to the defendant’s actions.

Criticism and challenges

Causation can be contentious, particularly in complex cases involving multiple factors. Critics argue that tests like “but-for” oversimplify real-world causative scenarios. Courts, therefore, adapt their approach to ensure fair outcomes.