In English law, remoteness of damage limits liability for breach of contract or negligence, restricting compensation to losses that were reasonably foreseeable when the contract was formed or the tort occurred.
Remoteness assesses whether losses are sufficiently connected to the breach or negligent act. Courts apply tests of foreseeability to ensure compensation covers only reasonably anticipated damages.
Parties must consider potential risks and explicitly address liabilities within contracts to manage expectations clearly, limiting exposure to extensive claims.
Understanding remoteness ensures parties appreciate potential liabilities, fostering clearer contractual terms and responsible behaviour to mitigate foreseeable risks.
Meta Description (140 characters):
Remoteness of damage: limits liability to foreseeable losses arising from breaches or negligence, ensuring fair and proportionate compensation.
Mrs Attia witnessed her home burning for over four hours due to British Gas's negligent installation of central heating. She claimed damages for psychiatric illness caused by the shock of seeing her property destroyed. The Court of Appeal held that such claims are not barred as a matter of law where property damage alone causes foreseeable psychiatric injury.
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 shipowner breached a charter party by deviating, causing nine days' delay in delivering sugar to Basrah. The sugar market price fell during the delay. The House of Lords held the charterers could recover damages for loss of market as such loss was not unlikely to result from the breach and was within the parties' contemplation.
A car dealer sued a buyer who repudiated a contract to buy a new car. Since demand for the car exceeded supply, the dealer easily resold it without loss. The court awarded only nominal damages, finding no actual loss of profit.
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.
Pig farmers purchased a bulk food storage hopper from manufacturers who failed to open the ventilator when installing it. This caused pig-nuts to become mouldy, leading to E. coli infection killing 254 pigs. The Court of Appeal held the manufacturers liable, establishing that in physical damage cases, liability extends to the type of damage foreseeable even if the precise extent was not.
A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured when an abandoned boat, left on council land for years, collapsed on him while he attempted to repair it. The House of Lords held the council liable, finding it reasonably foreseeable that children would meddle with the abandoned boat and risk physical injury.
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.
Mr Lagden's parked car was damaged by Mrs O'Connor's negligent driving. Being impecunious, he could not afford spot rate car hire and used a credit hire company instead. The House of Lords held that impecunious claimants can recover the full cost of credit hire services, departing from The Liesbosch principle that impecuniosity cannot increase recoverable damages.
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.
Oil negligently discharged from the appellants' ship spread across Sydney Harbour and ignited, destroying the respondents' wharf. The Privy Council held that liability in negligence depends on whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, overruling the 'direct consequences' test in Re Polemis. This established foreseeability as the test for remoteness of damage.
Overseas Tankship’s ship Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil in Sydney harbour. Welding sparks ignited it, destroying nearby repair ships. The Privy Council held that even a very small but serious risk must be guarded against if reasonably foreseeable, shaping negligence breach analysis.
Roadworks contractors negligently damaged an electricity cable supplying Spartan Steel’s factory, causing physical damage to a melt in an arc furnace and loss of production profits during a 14½ hour outage. The Court of Appeal limited recovery to physical damage and directly consequential profit, excluding pure economic loss.
Mr Downton falsely told Mrs Wilkinson, as a practical joke, that her husband had been badly injured, causing her severe nervous shock and physical illness. The court held that a wilful act calculated to cause physical harm, and actually causing it, is actionable.
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive
September 3, 2026
National Case Law Archive