McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] UKHL 7 – Law Journals

Causation: The sum of the parts

Matthew White weighs up the ‘but for’ test and material contribution in cumulative cause cases ‘The “material contribution” approach applies just as much to multiple factor cases as to single agency cases.’ An article in this publication in 2013 (‘Breach of duty and causation, where are we now?’ by Christopher Sharp QC and Matthew White, …

Continue reading "Causation: The sum of the parts"

This post is only available to members.

Clinical Negligence: Delay of reckoning

The material contribution test for causation in clinical negligence has been maintained and clarified following Williams and John. Suzanne Farg reports ‘The defendant appealed to the Privy Council on the basis that the Court of Appeal had been “led into error by a misinterpretation of ‘material contribution’ as sufficient for the purposes of causation.”’The recent …

Continue reading "Clinical Negligence: Delay of reckoning"

This post is only available to members.

Advocate’s Advice: Keeping it simple

Bill Braithwaite QC highlights a judgment with clear findings on causation and material contribution ‘A claim will fail if the most that can be said is that the claimant’s injury is likely to have been caused by one or more of a number of disparate factors, one of which was attributable to a wrongful act …

Continue reading "Advocate’s Advice: Keeping it simple"

This post is only available to members.

Causation: Reducing damages due to pre-existing conditions – a tenable argument?

Julian Matthews discusses two recent cases which illustrate the potentially far reaching consequences of the rules of causation of damage ‘These cases clearly illustrate that the focus of attention in the assessment of damages in cases where there is a medical or other disability subsisting prior to the date of negligence must be upon the …

Continue reading "Causation: Reducing damages due to pre-existing conditions – a tenable argument?"

This post is only available to members.

Breach of duty and causation: Where are we now?

Christopher Sharp QC and Matthew White analyse recent developments and provide practical advice ‘Ultimately it may be judicial pragmatism that provides the key (if not a principled solution) to the apparent conflicts in the case law.’ Must a claimant prove that a defendant’s breach of duty caused their loss before being entitled to recover damages …

Continue reading "Breach of duty and causation: Where are we now?"

This post is only available to members.

Fairchild Rules: Fair enough?

Patrick Limb QC examines the decision in the appeal case of IEG v Zurich ‘The relaxation of the causal requirement in mesothelioma claims emerged from the conjoined appeals in Fairchild precisely because the insurers were hoping that such claims would founder on the rock of uncertainty created by the inability to satisfy the “but for” …

Continue reading "Fairchild Rules: Fair enough?"

This post is only available to members.

Case Report: Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10

Asbestos; causation; applying Fairchild; single exposure; s3 Compensation Act 2006 ‘The rule in Fairchild applies to single exposure cases of mesothelioma just as it does in multi-exposure cases. In this way, the decision has dealt a very significant blow to the position of defendants in mesothelioma cases.’In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] the …

Continue reading "Case Report: Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10"

This post is only available to members.