As defined in Part 5 of IAEA Document INFCIRC/225/Rev.4)

Law360, London: A subsidiary of Caterpillar has failed to challenge government decisions over an anti-dumping investigation, after a London judge ruled on 9 May 2025 that the Texan construction equipment giant's legal challenge had become 'plainly academic'.

CASE HUB (appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T-91/13 (LG Electronics), T- 92/13 (Philips), T- 104/13 (Toshiba), T- 84/13 (Samsung) and T- 82/13 (Panasonic)–see Cases T- 82/13 Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission, et al) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation

MLex: The EU’s highest court has been asked whether the right to erasure in the EU’s data protection law applies when a person seeks to have a baptismal record deleted by the Catholic Church in Belgium.

Causation comprises the policy definitions on what in law constitutes a factual connection between an act and a consequence that in some way follows from that act.

Causation is a principle used in assessing the level of damages for breach of contract or duty in tort. Damages will be awarded only when loss was caused by the breach.

Criminal offences are generally divided into two categories: • conduct crimes, and • result crimes A conduct crime is a crime where only the forbidden conduct needs to be proved. For example, an accused is guilty of dangerous driving if they drove a motor vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place. There is no requirement to prove harmful consequences such as injury to another. A result crime is a crime which causes or results in specified consequences. For example, murder requires proof that someone is killed. For any result crime the prosecution must establish: • a factual link between the conduct of the accused and the result they are alleged to have caused (factual causation), and • a sufficient cause in law between the conduct of the accused and the prohibited consequences (legal causation) Factual causation is also known as ‘but for’ causation because it must be established that the result would not have occurred but for the actions of the accused. If factual causation cannot be established the

In Khan v Meadows, the Supreme Court set out a model for analysing the different ingredients required to establish negligence, including scope of duty and causation. For further guidance including on the scope of the defendant’s duty of care, see Practice Note: Duty of care and breach in clinical negligence claims. There are two parts to causation which a claimant must prove: • is the loss the consequence of the defendant’s act or omission? (the factual causation question) • is a particular element of the harm irrecoverable because it is too remote, or because there is a different effective cause (including an intervening act which broke the chain of causation) or because the claimant has mitigated their loss or has failed to avoid loss which they could reasonably have been expected to avoid? (the legal causation or legal responsibility question) In clinical negligence cases, the first issue is often broken down into two parts: • factual causation, ie the hypothetical timeline of events in the event that the

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that it would require ‘very clear express words in the contract’ spelling out a contractual duty to protect a customer from inflicting economic harm on himself before the court could conclude that ‘such an exceptional duty’ arose. The decision of the appellant to remain in the relevant ‘market’ and leave his spread-bets open was a deliberate choice on his part, independent of any breach by the respondent (a spread betting company). Whether analysed in terms of causation or failure to mitigate, which the court considered to be ‘two sides of the same coin’, it was that decision, not any breach by the respondent, which caused the loss. The respondent had not assumed responsibility for the risks of continuing speculation by the appellant. The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the appeal, stating that there had been ‘no error in the judge concluding…that the appellant had wholly failed to mitigate his loss for the same reasons as he had concluded that it was the appellant’s decision to continue to leave his bets open which was the cause of the loss’. Written by Christopher Humby, Senior Associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

When considering a claim for damages (see Practice Note: Contractual damages—general principles and related content), the court will consider the principles of causation and remoteness. A party's duty to mitigate its loss is dealt with in Practice Note: Mitigation in civil damages claims. For guidance on causation in professional negligence claims, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims. For guidance on causation and remoteness in tort claims, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in tort and negligence claims. Note: issues of causation and the ‘but for’ test in the specific context of insurance policy wording are outside the scope of this Practice Note but were considered in detail in the coronavirus (COVID-19) prompted test case of The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd, with the decision illustrating the importance of focussing in on the key question in ‘but for’ causation, namely, ‘but for what’ precisely? For further details see News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption test case (post-judgment analysis) construction, composite perils and causation

In analysing the causation and remoteness aspects of a professional negligence claim, a good starting point are the 2021 Supreme Court decisions in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton (accountants’ negligence) and Khan v Meadows (clinical negligence) where the court (of identical constitution in the two decisions) considered that: ‘ [...] adoption of an analysis of [the below] provides a helpful structure in which to assess the role of the scope of duty principle, “but for” causation and foreseeability of harm in the context of claims of clinical negligence. The product of this analysis assists in the determination of the extent of the claimant’s entitlement to damages in accordance with the principle that the law in awarding damages seeks, so far as money can, to put the claimant in the position in which he or she would have been absent the defendant’s negligence.’ (Khan at para [58]) The analysis (at para [6] of Manchester and reproduced at para [28] of Khan) requires posing and answering the following questions: ‘6.

This Practice Note considers the requirement for causation as part of establishing a viable claim in tort, including in negligence claims. It considers the aspects of factual causation: including the ‘but for’ test, evidencing it and its limits, inferring causation, consideration of special circumstances and scientific uncertainty, and those of legal causation: including the effective cause of the damage (eg third party act or omission and claimant’s own intervening conduct) and the remoteness of the damage sought to be recovered (foreseeability). For guidance on causation in the specific context of professional negligence claims, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims. For guidance on causation in personal injury and clinical negligence claims, see Practice Notes: • Causation in personal injury claims • Causation and material contribution in clinical negligence claims Causation in tort—when required and what it entails In most torts, where a defendant breaches its duty towards the claimant, the defendant is only liable if the claimant can establish that the breach in question has resulted in some