David Juckes

This Practice Note deals with causation in clinical negligence claims. To establish causation the claimant must prove that the defendant’s breach actually caused the injury and loss and also that the loss and the injury were not too remote or unforeseeable. The ‘but for’ test and its exceptions including material contribution are considered together with the apportionment of causation. The special rules in informed consent cases are also reviewed. The approach where an intervening act has occurred is also considered.

This Practice Note deals with establishing the causal link of whether the breach caused the injury to the claimant. It also covers complications in establishing causation in the context of diseases, loss of a chance, multiple tortfeasors, combined causes, consecutive cases, vicissitudes of life and new intervening acts. The court will start by asking ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence, would the claimant have sustained their injuries? This is a question of fact and in many cases the answer will be simple and conclusive. Where another cause also contributed to the claimant’s injuries, the court may need to decide which was the real or effective cause. This is a question of law. A common issue for the court is whether the chain of causation was broken by an intervening act or event.

This Practice Note provides information on pre-action costs recovery under Part 36, explaining when pre-action costs can be recovered under Part 36 and what happens if a Part 36 offer is made and accepted before proceedings commence.

This Practice Note considers the purpose of Part 36, what a Part 36 offer is and the reasons for making a Part 36 offer. It also provides information on making a request for clarification of a Part 36 offer and the costs consequences for both claimants and defendants in making and accepting Part 36 offers.