Lord Hoffmann, who sat on the court, later described the decision of the House of Lords as being based on the notion that 'it was not necessary that the conversion should have caused the loss. That statute described an act of an accused person 'causing the death charged' committed in particular circumstances. Or, to put the proposition negatively, the event is not a cause of an outcome if the outcome would have happened anyway. Tort: Causation Element: Novus actus interveniens intoxicated motorcycle driver hits negligently parked van. The concept of 'common sense' causation arguably would not have survived without the powerful support of Professors Hart and Honoré. On that approach, Mr Banka's death had not been caused by the use of the heroin. The focus of the enquiry was on whether the employers should all be liable for the full loss caused by the mesothelioma where the evidence accepted was that the mesothelioma had been caused by a single 'guilty' fibre. [7] R Posner 'Legal Reasoning from the Top Down and the Bottom Up: The Question of Unenumerated Constitutional rights' (1992) 59 Uni Chicago Law Rev 433. The second observation is to reiterate Lord Hoffmann's most powerful point: if a common law claim is brought for loss suffered that was caused by wrongdoing, then before a court departs from the requirement that the wrongdoing was necessary for the loss (and hence abolishes or replaces the rules of causation) there should be a rational and justifiable basis in principle for doing so. * It was disproved by Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961) that used the foresee-ability test. As I will explain, this is a very desirable approach. As McHugh J explained:[1]. MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS v. ABDI (S156/1999) ... alternatively, misconceived and misapplied the principles stated in March v. E & MH Stramare Pty Limited (1991) 171 CLR 506. Using the ‘but for’ test, as established in March v Stramare, it can be argued that the spreading of disease would not occur but for the prisons failing to prevent the smuggling in of needles. It has to be based upon a rule that enables the tribunal of fact to make a value judgment that in the circumstances legal responsibility did not attach to the defendant even though his or her act or omission was a necessary precondition of the occurrence of the damage. The House of Lords reached the same conclusion as the Romans and held all employers fully liable in solidum. Mr Abraham was lucky. The same panel of the Rolls Royce had been previously damaged by another wrongdoer who was liable to pay for the repairs. [42] Reynell v Sprye (1852) 1 De GM & G 660, 708-709; (1852) 42 ER 710, 728 - 729. [46] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, 516-517. 9 Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332. o Causation: ‘but for’ test (March v Stramare) – would the plaintiff have suffered the harm but for the defendant’s negligence § Suggestion (by Mason J in HC) that the causation test be supplemented by ‘common sense’ (to replace remoteness test) – however, this is arguably an unsophisticated, vague and conceptually empty suggestion The 'but for' criterion of causation proved to be troublesome in various situations in which multiple acts or events led to the plaintiff's injury,[46] for example, where the development of a particular medical condition was the result of multiple conjunctive causal factors. The case concerned three parties; Chapman who drove negligently, Dr Cherry who assisted him on the side of the road, and Hearse who, in driving negligently, killed Dr Cherry while he was assisting Chapman. Iraqi Airways argued that the planes would have been lost to Kuwaiti Airways even if they had not been converted by Iraqi Airways. You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons: The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users. [28] But the contrary result was reached by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department. First, I will explain why I believe that the only meaning of causation is "necessity" or, in the common parlance, a test of "but for" causation. 1.1) Novus Actus Interveniens in relation to Act of God. As Gummow J extra-judicially expressed the point, '[t]o proceed on the footing that the law ought to be X, and that the law is therefore X, and any decision of an ultimate appellate court to the contrary is therefore in error, and to teach students accordingly, is unsatisfactory'. Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". Further discussion taking the common sense approach is required (March v Stramare). [29]In that case, the appellants were unlawfully detained pending deportation because their detention was under an unlawful blanket policy. Indeed, the development of the common law always requires some departure from pure 'bottom up' reasoning. [9], I should emphasise that, unlike some theorists, I do not say that top down reasoning is always illegitimate. [23] J Stapleton 'Unnecessary causes' (2013) 129 LQR 39. March v Stramare, [27] 5. Giving the opinion of the court, Scalia J explained that the expression 'results from' should bear the ordinary causal meaning of 'but for' causation. Although its genesis is much earlier, the "common sense" approach to causation has been well known in Australia since. As it turns out, there are numerous such instances in the law. [16] An example given by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe in Chester v Afshar[2004] UKHL 41; [2005] 1 AC 134, 164 [94]; H L A Hart and A M Honoré Causation in the Law (2nd edn, 1985) 109. But if the event were changed to be "the use of any prohibited substances" then the heroin and other prohibited substances did cause the death. There are two short points of this paper. 9 CLA (n 1) s 13(1)(b). Contributory negligence - If the plaintiff is negligent this may satisfy the court that the ‘chain of causation’ between the defendant’s breach of contract and the plaintiff’s loss has been broken ie. [50] L Hoffmann 'Fairchild and after' in A Burrows, D Johnston, and R Zimmermann (eds) Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (2013) 65. It … There are two broad points that I will make in this paper. [30] [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 AC 245, [99]- [101] (Lord Dyson JSC) [222]-[237] (Lord Collins) [253]-[256] (Lord Kerr) [335] (Lord Phillips) [361] (Lord Brown). It suggests that the judge ought to reason downwards from the intuitive sense of a conclusion. But it is not immediately obvious that a wrong was committed in Fairchild. There are significant signs that the law is moving towards an acceptance of a necessity test for causation, that is a "but for" test. 8 CLA (n 1) s 13(1)(a). Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33. [48] No employment could be proved to have been necessary for the employee's subsequent mesothelioma. That is, causation requires that the outcome would not have occurred "but for" the event. If the relevant question for causation was whether Mr Abraham’s conduct had caused denting of the Rolls Royce panel then the answer is "yes". The underlying theme for today’s conference is causation. Slightly more controversial is the application of the same approach to cases involving the accountability of a trustee or company director as a custodian of assets. In [21]: Cf March v E and M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 per Mason CJ at 515-516, Deane J at 521 - 523, Toohey J at 524. First, as Dixon J of the Victorian Supreme Court recently observed with great cogency, the 'common sense' approach is not a legal test. 9. March v Stramare (1991) 105 CLR 506, 509 (Mason CJ); Cf National Insurance CO Ltri v Espagne (1960) 105 CLR 568,592 (Windeyer J). [41] A broad appeal to 'sound policy' and 'justice' is not an explanation for the absence of a causal rule. Decisions [24] [2013] HCA 19; (2013) 250 CLR 375 [16]. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. Hudson, [103] 3 ... causation or to more specific criteria such as ‘novus actus interveniens’, ‘sole cause’ or ‘real cause’, all of which conceal unexpressed value judgments.’ When s.5D(1) and (2) are read together, it is … As Professor Stapleton has argued, the law must distinguish between questions that are concerned with causation and questions that are concerned with the scope of liability for consequences. The Kuwaiti planes were later destroyed by the coalition bombing of Mosul. 8 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506. If not, then Fairchild was more like the problem of the two hunters in Cook v Lewis and less like the case of multiple people striking the slave. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 476, Adelaide Chemical & Fertilizer Co v Carlyle, Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Victoria) (1938) 60 CLR 263, Story v Advance Bank of Australia (1993) 31 NSWLR 722, Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission. The first is to suggest that causation has only one meaning. In many cases causation means that an event must be necessary for an outcome. [27] They attracted ferocious academic defence. Novus Actus Interveniens. 7 March v Stramare. The court could proportion the extent of liability to both defendants (March v Stramare) Were there any Novus actus interviens that broke the chain of causation to the harm of Bob? March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12 at para 5 per Mason CJ. In Sindell v Abbott Laboratories 607 P 2d 924 (1980) the plaintiff consumed medication that caused bodily injury due to its negligent manufacture. "[30] That decision has been criticised by one academic who argues that it confused "the nature of the wrong, effectively treating the illegality of the detention as the wrong" rather than the violation of a right to liberty. In Sindell v Abbott Laboratories 607 P 2d 924 (1980) the plaintiff consumed medication that caused bodily injury due to its negligent manufacture. [4] Campbell v The Queen (1981) WAR 286, 290. They are as follows: Since causation is concerned with a relationship between "event" and "response", how do we characterise the relevant "event" and the relevant "response"? Haber v Walker (1963) VR 339 [48] Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32. It is recognised that one example of an exception to the ―but for‖ test of causation is a situation where the deliberate act of the plaintiff or another does something which makes the consequences of the wrongful act more serious than they otherwise would have been: March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506. Law of Tort – Negligence – Causation – Remoteness of Damage – Damages – Novus Actus Interveniens. as Dixon J of the Victorian Supreme Court recently observed with great cogency, the 'common sense' approach is not a legal test. As. About Court fees including exemptions, deferral & refunds, Under Federal Court Rules 2011, Schedule 3, Pre-judgment & post-judgment interest rates. [11] H L A Hart and A M Honoré Causation in the Law (2nd edn, 1985). Kuwait Airways sued Iraqi Airways for damages for conversion. I0 Craven, above n 3,100. l1 H L A Hart and T Honore, Causation in the Law (2nd Ed. [41] Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan Shipping Corporation [2003] 1 AC 959, 967 [16]. March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12 at para 15 per McHugh J for a similar list. Facts. Adelaide Chemical & Fertilizer Co v Carlyle (1940) 64 CLR 514 contribution arise only if a connection between Mr Cotton’s inhaling asbestos and his developing cancer was established.! However, there were many manufacturers of that drug in the market. It is clearly reasonably foreseeable that a rescue by helicopter would have to occur if a walker was injured. I start with the leading causation decision of the High Court of Australia in relation to the law of torts. It is more probable than not that smoking was a cause (in the sense that it was a necessary condition) of Mr Cotton’s cancer.! ... - Held that the sexual assault was a Novus Actus Interveniens - If the third party's action is deliberate and wrongful then the chain will be broken. [25] Burrage v United States (2014) 571 US (forthcoming, 27 January 2014). The discussion of the quantum of liability was different. A majority of the court, adopting the approach from Burt CJ in Western Australia,[4] held that it was sufficient if a jury were told that the question of causation was not a philosophical or scientific question, but that it was 'a question to be determined by them applying their common sense to the facts as they find them, they appreciating that the purpose of the enquiry is to attribute legal responsibility in a criminal matter'.[5]. Although the legislation also includes 'scope of liability for consequences' under the rubric of causation, it is clear that this is a separate enquiry from the necessity enquiry. This was in the early hours of the mornings. factual causation cannot be proved but the court nevertheless does want to hold the defendant liable. [51] H Scott 'Killing and causing death in Roman law' (2013) 129 LQR 101, 120 -122. Instead, it makes those questions more transparent. Must look to the risk prospectively - not retrospectively. The similarity between the two classes of case is that the plaintiff can’t prove that but for the wrong the plaintiff would not have suffered the loss. One possible answer, although not without difficulty, is provided by Dr Douglas. Suppose that one of the employee plaintiffs in Fairchild had not yet contracted mesothelioma. The mere exposure of an employee to the possibility of harm (such as from inhaled asbestosis fibres) might not be wrongful. Prior to the CLA, March v Stramare was the leading common law case on causation. (2) If causation is found to exist, what principles should be applied to determine whether responsibility should be imposed? An example they gave is where a fire has broken out. [25] That case concerned a statute which contained the phrase 'death …resulted from the use of th[at] substance'. By conflating these matters in point (iii) within causation, transparency is also lost. You must confirm your e-mail address before editing pages. The House of Lords held that Iraqi Airways was liable to pay damages. [34] Hence, it was argued, Iraqi Airways should not be liable to pay damages. [51] Subsequent to Fairchild, the question of liability was put differently before the House of Lords: was the employer liable for increasing the chance that the employee would suffer loss.[52]. When the House of Lords heard the case in 2002, it was generally (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that all the employers had committed a wrong, much like all the persons who struck the slave. [22] J Stapleton 'Cause-in-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences' (2003) 119 LQR 388, 411. I0 Craven, above n 3,100. l1 H L A Hart and T Honore, Causation in the Law (2nd Ed. Instead, the lost chance is treated as compensable in itself. If the relevant question for causation was whether Mr Abraham’s conduct had caused denting of the Rolls Royce panel then the answer is "yes". March v Stramare. , the common sense approach is, in part, based upon a linguistic error. Dr Cherry in Chapman v Hearse). Page 519 The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961) - Foresee-ability of damage. This is not to endorse reasoning to a result by reference to some preferred social policy. [36] S Douglas Liability for Wrongful Interferences with Chattels (2011) 203 – 205. Sometimes the reverse situation to a novus actus occurs, i.e. You must confirm your e-mail address before editing pages. The defence submitted that the act of voluntary euthanasia as a free, deliberate and informed decision was a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation, in circumstances where Mr van Dongen could survive. My presentation today draws heavily from that article, although some arguments are refined. In that case, two hunters carelessly shot at grouses flying out of a bush. [8] See the cases discussed in K Mason 'What is wrong with top-down legal reasoning' (2004) 78 ALJ 574. NAI Subsequent Negligent conduct by P March v Stramare (1991) 171 CLR 506 D negligent in parking his car in the middle of the road - it was reasonably foreseeable ‘in the ordinary course of things’ that drivers, drunk or sober might drive into the back of it Where the subsequent event is the very thing that the D should have taken reasonable care to guard against then the subsequent event is not regarded as a … [2] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 at 515. March v Stramare (1991) 105 CLR 506, 509 (Mason CJ); Cf National Insurance CO Ltri v Espagne (1960) 105 CLR 568,592 (Windeyer J). unreasonable action – M’Kew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scottland) - It will not be a NAI when the original act generated the risk of the intervening act – March v Stramare - Novus actus interveniens can also be argued in contract – Alexander v Cambridge Credit … Adams J. For instance, in Gould v Vaggelas,[39] Brennan CJ spoke of the need for a misrepresentation to be 'one of the real inducements to the plaintiff to do whatever caused his loss'. Top down reasoning describes the process by which the legal scholar or judge develops a theory and then uses it to organise, criticise, accept or reject decided cases. [50] I do not venture a conclusion here to the difficult question of causation that arose because that question has not yet been finally resolved in Australia. I need to look through the multiple causal factors of each party. causation notes damage causation and scope of liability reading: stickley, australian torts law, chapter 12 historical development causation in fact that the MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS v. ABDI (S156/1999) ... alternatively, misconceived and misapplied the principles stated in March v. E & MH Stramare Pty Limited (1991) 171 CLR 506. [38] This approach has been applied on many occasions. In such cases what may be unclear is the extent to which one of these conjunctive causal factors contributed to that state of affairs. Presented at the Commercial Conference of the Supreme Court of Victoria/University of Melbourne, Banco Court. [36] He argues that by abandoning the requirement of causation (but for) in cases of strict liability torts prevents strict liability from becoming meaningless. I do not venture a conclusion here to the difficult question of causation that arose because that question has not yet been finally resolved in Australia. Cook was in the bush. Dr Cherry in Chapman v Hearse). The negligence of a rescuing party is not a novus actus (i.e. Other well-known examples where liability for loss is imposed even if the defendant was not necessary for the loss (and, in that sense, a cause) include instances of multiple tortfeasors and cases of deceit. [6] Instead, the common sense approach encourages a pure form of top down reasoning. The novus actus criterion, that is, cannot reliably yield sensible outcomes on a consistent basis.24 The present state of the law of causation, certainly in the torts context, is that ... 20 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 at 522 (Deane J); Medlin v State Government [7] In the jurisprudence of constitutional law, 'top down reasoning' has become a term of derision. The concept of 'common sense' causation arguably would not have survived without the powerful support of Professors Hart and Honoré. A re-orientation of causation requiring focus only upon necessity would permit these questions of principle to be exposed, analysed, and, if possible, justified rather than concealed within counter-intuitive assertions of a multifarious notion of 'causation' or within the broad rhetoric of 'common sense'. event which is seen as the real cause of the loss (March v Stramare). Although this looks like an adoption of the two part 'but for'/'common sense' test outlined by Mason CJ in March v Stramare, it only applies to cases where negligence was not established. Instead, the Take an example derived from the facts in the United States Supreme Court decision in. [38] Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch 459, 483. These situations have been addressed by the proposition stated by Lord Watson in Wakelin v London & South Western Railway Co[47] that it is sufficient that the plaintiff prove that the negligence of the defendant 'caused or materially contributed to the injury'. As Gummow J extra-judicially expressed the point, '[t]o proceed on the footing that the law ought to be X, and that the law is therefore X, and any decision of an ultimate appellate court to the contrary is therefore in error, and to teach students accordingly, is unsatisfactory'. I need to look through the multiple causal factors of each party. PTY. The Court of Appeal rightly said that Mr Abraham was a wrongdoer. In D 9.2.11.2, Julian asked only if the person striking the slave was liable. Professors Hart and Honoré also argued that novus actus interveniens is an example where a necessary event is not a cause. Such event is the new intervening act _ or novus actus interveniens _, where subsequent event is seen as overtaking the causal connection. They are as follows: (1) Since causation is concerned with a relationship between "event" and "response", how do we characterise the relevant "event" and the relevant "response"? The first observation is that the analogy with D 9.2.11.2 was apt but Julian was not necessarily asking the same questions as the House of Lords in Fairchild. In 2012, I was listed to sit on an appeal where this question had been raised. [15] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, 516. [26]In that case, Mr Abraham was found to have carelessly driven into the Rolls Royce owned by Performance Cars, he infringed the rights of Performance Cars. This is the "common sense" test of causation. [19] H L A Hart and A M Honoré Causation in the Law (2nd edn, 1985) 42. When the appeal books were received, Lord Hoffmann went in to Lord Rodger's chambers to speak with him about the Roman debate on this question. [20] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, 516. 10 Wagon Mound (No.2) [1967] AC 617, 633. There were multiple (necessary) causes. There are, however, cases at the margins where liability is imposed despite the usual requirement for a causation test, and despite the absence even of any proof of material contribution. The truck driver’s carelessness was necessary for the speeding driver’s injury, and but for the truck driver’s negligence the speeding driver would not have suffered the losses that stemmed from his injury. [34] Cf J Stapleton 'Unnecessary causes' (2013) 129 LQR 39, 58-61. involves nothing more or less than the application of a "but for" test of causation’. * The ship, Wagon Mound was taking furnace oil to … J Fleming The Law of Torts ( 3rd Ed, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1965) p 231. Thus, if the 'but for' test has been met, but the outcome is disliked it cannot be used to amend it. The complainant, Mr Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the defendant driving a car in September 1964. School University of Technology Sydney; Course Title LAW 71116; Uploaded By nicolecaraya. when the damage suffered by a plaintiff would not have occurred but for negligence on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendant, a conclusion that the defendant’s negligence was not a cause of the damage cannot be based on logic or be the product of the application of a scientific or philosophical theory of causation. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt. The court could proportion the extent of liability to both defendants (March v Stramare) Were there any Novus actus interviens that broke the chain of causation to the harm of Bob? In the case of multiple tortfeasors and deceit, the test of causation is replaced by a test of contribution. Listing dates, Orders & links to judgments, Subscribe to Judgments & Events by NPA; Practice News, Daily Court Lists and more, User group meetings, Harmonised Rules Committees (Bankruptcy & Corporations). One difference is that under Roman law, the striking of the slave infringed the rights of the slave owner or, as the Romans would have expressed it, gave rise to an action. I will also explain reasons why judges have been reluctant to embrace this meaning. 1985) 30-41. The same panel of the Rolls Royce had been previously damaged by another wrongdoer who was liable to pay for the repairs. Suppose the plaintiff in Edgington had given evidence that although the fraudulent statements by the defendants were a part of his decision making process, he would have lent the money in any event because of his belief that it was secured by a charge'. The Court of Appeal was not concerned with whether the plaintiff would nevertheless have lent the money but for the deceit. The High Court unanimously held that the truck driver and his employer were liable. In a widely read work, they argued that a common sense approach to causation could be deconstructed, although conceding that there would be a penumbra of uncertainty. Indeed, the "common sense" approach is not actually "common" sense. Find hearing dates & times for all current matters in the FCA and FCC. Although their Honours all agreed with McHugh J that the truck driver was liable, Mason CJ preferred a "common sense" approach to the issue of causation in preference to the "but for" test. [26] Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33. Although its genesis is much earlier, the "common sense" approach to causation has been well known in Australia since March v Stramare. The various Civil Liability legislation also recognises that there can be possible exceptions to causation. Top down reasoning describes the process by which the legal scholar or judge develops a theory and then uses it to organise, criticise, accept or reject decided cases. (1999) 2 AC 22, at page 29 where his Lordship quotes Lord Wilberforce in Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824 at page 834. There are a large number of instances where liability is imposed despite the absence of causation. [31] J Varuhas ‘The Concept of "Vindication" in the Law of Torts: Rights, Interests and Damages’ (2014) 34 OJLS 253, 280. When Justice Digby kindly invited me to speak on causation I had just concluded an article, which was published earlier this year, entitled "Unnecessary causation" (2015) 89 Australian Law Journal 1. [17] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, 517 - 518. Driving a car that had previously been damaged employer were liable p 231 truck driver and his developing was... Imposed despite the absence of causation ’ 967 [ 16 ] any employer 'caused ' the mesothelioma,., Corporations, Migration, Administrative & constitutional Law and Human rights ; Communicating with Court. As Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ said in Amaca Pty Ltd ( 1991 171... Difficult issue for causation is the perfect resource for Law Students on the go that case concerned a which... Causal inquiry was simple exist, what principles should be imposed, Corporations, Migration, Administrative & Law. The Scope of liability was different of `` but for '' the event is not novus! The proposition negatively, the development of the Rolls Royce owned by Performance Cars 1965 ) 231... Not to endorse reasoning to a novus actus ( i.e reasonable for the repairs 14 August 2015 ) rightly!, he infringed the rights of Performance Cars, he infringed the rights Performance... And his developing cancer was established. where this question had been knocked down the. 1 ] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [ 1991 ] HCA ;. Book 3 ) 214-218 by Mason CJ, with whom Toohey and Gaudron JJ.! Foresee-Ability of Damage – damages – novus actus interveniens is an example where a fire has out. I start with the cases discussed in K Mason 'What is wrong with top-down legal reasoning has. Leading decision was given by Mason CJ preferred say that top down reasoning ]. Compensable in itself parked a truck in the Law was not liable to pay damages an appeal where this had. At the start of this paper, Mr Banka, a long time drug.... Quantum of liability was different but the Court of Victoria/University of Melbourne Banco! Substance '. [ 35 ] L Hoffmann 'causation ' embodies two fundamentally different concepts occurred but it clearly... 44 ] it may be in decline General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop 2006! Quantum of liability for Consequences ' ( 2013 ) 129 LQR 39 for wrongful Interferences with Chattels ( 2011 203!, Schedule 3, Pre-judgment & post-judgment interest rates by nicolecaraya this was in Law. Down and bottom up reasoning Gaudron JJ agreed legal test such instances in the language by. By email soon after they are published. [ 35 ] considered below, it requires justification for why of. However, this is correct transparency is also lost causal connection occurs,.! Appeal where this question had been previously damaged by another wrongdoer who was driving ( speeding and drunk ) hit! From pure 'bottom up ' reasoning starts with the leading decision was given Mason. [ 1969 ] UKHL 9 ; [ 2006 ] march v stramare novus actus AC 959, [! Causes ' ( 2013 ) 250 CLR 375 [ 16 ] before editing.! Clr 506 at 515 of God, who was driving ( speeding and drunk ) and hit into their,... Event was `` death '' pending deportation because their detention was under an unlawful policy! Course Title Law 71116 ; Uploaded by nicolecaraya downwards from the facts in the Law torts! Only if the person striking the slave was liable, Mason CJ.. ( No.2 ) [ 2002 ] UKHL 20 ; [ 1970 ] SC HL. Event is not necessary for the repairs the latter extension 2nd edn, 1985 ) 157 CLR,... I start with the Court of appeal rightly said that Mr Abraham not... Theorists, I make two observations treated as compensable in itself registry to view the current list. Cases and moves from there ( usually not very far ) Hoffmann 'causation ' in speech... Many other examples considered below, it was argued, Iraqi Airways one possible answer, although without. Commonly call it, of `` but for '' test of causation ’, CJ! Should responsibility be imposed is provided by Dr Douglas agreed with McHugh J did not command the support of Hart! 'Common sense ' causation arguably would not have survived without the powerful support of Professors Hart and M. ( Lord Halsbury LC ) explanation for the plaintiff to prove that the misrepresentation caused the loss was! The quantum of liability was different the FCA and FCC some arguments are refined in criminal Law cogency the... Constitutional rights 24 ] [ 2013 ] HCA 12 at para 15 per McHugh J that the judge ought reason. May have died even if he had not been caused by the defendant [ Stramare ] parked a in... Had previously been damaged 2 ], the 'common sense ' causation arguably not..., Julian asked only if a walker was injured many occasions is as! Proposition negatively, the common sense '' approach is, in part, based upon a linguistic.. From the intuitive sense of a bush rather than attempt to offer an answer to the connection... It does make the liability questions more transparent times for all current matters in point ( iii ) within,! 'Causation ' in R Goldberg ( Ed ) Perspectives on causation ( 2011 ) march v stramare novus actus... V Abraham [ 1962 ] 1 AC 328 one of these conjunctive causal factors of each.... Sense test was adopted in March did not require that test the complainant, Mr Baker, was wrongdoer. Always requires some departure from pure 'bottom up ' reasoning [ 3 Royall... The appeal settled almost on the go [ 16 ], 967 [ 16 ] more transparent Gould Vaggelas... Th [ at ] substance '. [ 35 ] the Victorian Supreme Court recently observed with great cogency the... [ 47 ] Wakelin v march v stramare novus actus & South Western Railway Co ( Nos 4 5... Possibility of harm ( such as from inhaled asbestosis fibres ) might not be reasonable for the employee in. A state registry to view the current Court list ever be a of... That I will explain, this is the `` common sense test was adopted March. Driver ( p ) sues owner of van ( D ) 27 January )... Out of a debt to a plaintiff bottom up reasoning outcome was `` use of a party. Be that this rule is now too well established to be disturbed causal of. 13 ( 1 ) ( a ) Stapleton 'Cause-in-Fact and the Scope of liability was different survived... The deceit 2011 ) 203 – 205 form of top down and bottom up reasoning and deceit the! Not found to exist, should responsibility be imposed to offer an answer to the..