No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Linking Chains of Causation: An Examination of New Approaches to Causation in Equity and the Common Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 July 2001
Abstract
In a lecture to the Northern Chancery Bar Association, the author, a Chancery Silk, examines the approaches of equity and the common law to questions of causation and attempts to identify (1) where the rules of causation now stand, (2) some incongruities in those rules and (3) how those incongruities might be resolve. He discusses three problems: the question of causation and equitable remedies generally; the growing disparity between the rules of causation where positive advice or representation is given and those where there is a failure to advise or inform; and, thirdly, the measure of dependance upon culpability, in intentional torts on the one hand and in torts of strict liability on the other. He identifies various stages of causation and concludes that they are not all relevant in each of these cases.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2001
Footnotes
This article is a lightly revised version of a lecture given to the Northern Chancery Bar Association in Manchester in February 2001.
References
1 In Lincoln's Inn on 15 June 1999.
2 [1990] 2 A.C. 605 at 627, 651.
3 [1997] A.C. 191 at 211.
4 [1999] 2 A.C. 22 at 31-33.
5 [1948] 2 K.B. 48.
6 [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1360.
7 [1999] B.C.C. 351.
8 South Australia Asset Management v. York Montague [1997] A.C. 191 at 213.
9 Alexander v. Cambridge Credit Corporation [1987] N.S.W.L.R. 310. Mahoney J.A. at 333–335.
10 Reeves v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 A.C. 360.
11 Eighteenth Report (Conversion and Detinue), September 1971, Cmnd. 4774, at paragraph 13.
12 [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 161.
13 The Court of Appeal has held in The Arpad [1934] P. 189 and Saleslease Ltd v. Davis [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1664 that the normal rules olf remoteness and foreseeability of loss do apply in cases of conversion. This is strange, but may have to be the subject of another lecture.
14 See Lords Steyn and Browne-Wilkinson in Smith New Court v. Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] A.C. 254 at 267 and 282, and the case of Doyle v. Olby [1969] 2 Q.B. 158.
15 See Hobhouse L.J. in Downs v. Chappell [1997] 1 W.L.R. 426 ait 4-43.
16 Smith New Court v. Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] A.C. 254, at 283.
17 [1997] 4 All E.R. 705.
18 [1996] A.C. 421.
19 In a lecture to the Chancery Bar Association in June 1996, published in (1998) 114 L.Q.R. 214 and 399.
20 Companhia de Seguras Imperia v. Heath (REBX) Ltd [2001] Lloyd's Rep IR 109: C.A.
21 Smith New Court v. Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] A.C. 254.
22 See Mummery L.J. in Swindle v. Harrison [1997] 4 All E.R. 705 at 733.
23 Bristol & West v. Mothew [1998] Ch. 1 at 11.
24 Also at page 11.
25 [1997] 4 All E.R. 70 at 728.
26 At page 433.
27 [1971] 1 Q.B. 113.
28 Mothew at pages 12-13.
29 The ratio in South Australia Asset Management Corporation.
30 Most famously expressed by Lindley L.J. in Manchester Trust v. Furness [1895] 2 Q.B. 539 at 545.
31 [1967] 2 A.C. 46.
32 [1967] 2 A.C. 134 (Note).
33 [1972] 1 W.L.R. 443.