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.
Causation determines whether the defendant’s actions directly resulted in the claimant’s harm or loss. It involves two key concepts:
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.
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.
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.
Allied Maples acquired businesses from the Gillow Group but received negligent advice from their solicitors regarding protection against contingent liabilities from assigned leases. The Court of Appeal established that where loss depends on a third party's hypothetical actions, a claimant need only prove a substantial chance of success, with evaluation of that chance being a matter of damages quantification.
The defendant stabbed his pregnant partner, causing premature birth; the child was born alive but died from complications of prematurity. The House of Lords held he could not be guilty of murder, as malice could not be transferred via the foetus, but was guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
The claimant suffered brain damage after aspirating vomit while hospitalised. The negligent failure to properly resuscitate her after a procedure contributed to her weakened state alongside non-negligent pancreatitis. The Court of Appeal held that where cumulative causes contribute to injury, a claimant need only prove the negligent cause made a material contribution, not that it was the sole cause.
The plaintiff was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's negligence, damaging his left leg. Before trial, robbers shot his leg, necessitating amputation. The House of Lords held that the defendant remained liable for the original injury's consequences, as the subsequent injury did not diminish or obliterate the losses already caused.
Barclays incurred nearly £4 million after Fairclough’s defective asbestos work. The Court of Appeal held that contributory negligence could not reduce damages for breach of a strict contractual obligation, so Barclays was entitled to recover the full agreed loss.
Workers contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos by multiple employers. The House of Lords held that defendants liable under the Fairchild exception should bear only several liability proportionate to their contribution to the risk, not joint and several liability for the whole damage.
A heat exchanger exploded at Beoco's factory due to the plaintiff's own negligence in failing to properly test repairs before resuming operations. Though the first defendant breached warranty in supplying defective equipment, the plaintiff could not recover hypothetical lost profits for repairs never carried out due to the supervening explosion caused by their own recklessness.
A two-year-old boy suffered brain damage after cardiac arrest caused by respiratory failure. The doctor negligently failed to attend when called but argued intubation would not have been performed anyway. The House of Lords clarified that expert medical opinion must be logically defensible to satisfy the Bolam test.
Miss Chester underwent spinal surgery without being warned of a 1-2% risk of nerve damage. The risk materialised, causing partial paralysis. Although she could not prove she would never have had surgery, the House of Lords held the surgeon liable, modifying conventional causation principles to protect patient autonomy and the right to informed consent.
Teenage vandals discharged a dry powder fire extinguisher throughout a medieval church, causing £240,000 in cleaning costs. The church sued the extinguisher supplier for failing to warn about the mess such discharge could cause. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the supplier not liable.
Mr Corr suffered severe physical and psychological injuries in a workplace accident caused by his employer's negligence. He developed severe depression and committed suicide six years later. The House of Lords held that his suicide was a foreseeable consequence of his depression and the employer remained liable under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.
The Claimant attended A&E after a head injury and was told he would wait 4-5 hours. He left after 19 minutes without being seen by clinical staff and later suffered serious brain injury. The claim against the hospital for negligence by reception staff in providing inaccurate waiting time information was dismissed.
A high tide breached a wall protecting the respondents' farmland, causing flooding. The appellant Catchment Board had statutory power but no duty to repair. They attempted repairs inefficiently, taking 164 days instead of 14. The House of Lords held that having only a power, not a duty, the Board was not liable for damage caused by delay in exercising that power.
Empress Car Company stored diesel in a tank with unsafe withdrawal arrangements so that an unknown person could open an unlocked tap, causing diesel to enter a nearby river. The House of Lords held the company had "caused" the pollution under strict liability, clarifying causation where third-party acts intervene.
Workers developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos dust by multiple employers in breach of their duties. The House of Lords held that where science cannot determine which employer's breach caused the disease, proof that each materially increased the risk of contracting the disease is sufficient to establish causation.
Mr Gregg's GP negligently failed to diagnose cancer, delaying treatment by nine months. His prospects of disease-free survival fell from 42% to 25%. The House of Lords (3-2) dismissed his appeal, holding that loss of a chance of recovery is not recoverable damage in clinical negligence where the claimant cannot prove on balance of probabilities that negligence caused the adverse outcome.
A 13-year-old boy fell and fractured his hip. The hospital negligently failed to diagnose the injury for five days. He developed avascular necrosis causing permanent disability. The House of Lords held that since there was a 75% probability the damage was inevitable from the fall itself, causation was not established and damages for 'loss of chance' were not recoverable.
Mr Jobling injured his back at work due to his employer's negligence, reducing his earning capacity by 50%. Before trial, he developed unrelated myelopathy rendering him totally unfit for work. The House of Lords held that this supervening illness must be taken into account when assessing damages for loss of earnings, distinguishing Baker v Willoughby.
A GP negligently failed to refer a patient for genetic testing for haemophilia carrier status and gave incorrect advice. The patient later gave birth to a child with both haemophilia and autism. The Court of Appeal held the GP liable only for losses related to haemophilia, not autism, as autism fell outside the scope of duty.
Police Constable Knightley was injured when ordered to ride his motorcycle the wrong way through a tunnel to close it after Mr Johns negligently overturned his car. The Court of Appeal held that the chain of causation was broken by the Inspector's negligence, making Mr Johns not liable but the police liable.
A brickworks employee contracted dermatitis after working in hot, dusty conditions. His employers failed to provide shower facilities, which would have materially reduced the risk of disease. The House of Lords held that materially increasing the risk of injury was equivalent to materially contributing to causing the injury, allowing the appeal.
The appellant suffered a leg injury at work causing intermittent weakness. Days later, he attempted to descend steep stairs without assistance despite knowing his leg could give way. When it did, he jumped and fractured his ankle. The House of Lords held his unreasonable conduct broke the chain of causation.
The widow of a man who died from lung cancer sued a tobacco manufacturer for negligence. The court dismissed the claim, finding she had failed to prove that any breach of duty by the company caused her husband to smoke.
A steel erector died after falling from a tower when not wearing a safety belt. His employers had failed to provide one, but evidence showed he had never worn safety belts when available. The House of Lords held that the breach of duty did not cause his death, as he would not have worn the belt even if provided.
Veterans of British nuclear tests claimed injuries from radiation exposure. The Supreme Court considered whether their claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, specifically examining when 'knowledge' of attributability arose for limitation purposes. The majority held that subjective belief could constitute knowledge, dismissing the appeals.
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive
October 4, 2026
National Case Law Archive