Causation and Remoteness evaluation:

• The final argument relating to causation and remoteness is regarding the rules on remoteness. One of the benefits of this test is that it prevents the defendant from being liable for any injuries that they could not foresee.
• However one of the drawbacks of this is that it can be unfair to a claimant as they can operate in a way to limit the defendant’s liability. The approach taken by the courts in determining what “type” of damage may be foreseeable may not be fair. For example in Doughty V Turner Asbestos (1964), the claimant did not succeed. The burn injuries received by him were not foreseeable, as knowledge at the time could not have predicted an explosion . This also means that the test of remoteness does not fall within the main aim of tort which is to compensate the injured. 
• The third argument relating to causation and remoteness is regarding the tests that the courts have developed to decide whether the defendant has made a “material contribution” or “material increases of risk of harm” to provide justice in specific instances. One of the drawbacks of this is that this test does not balance the competing interests of the parties. This was shown in the mesothelioma cases such as in Fairchild V Glenhaven (2002), the claimants had been exposed to asbestos by a number of different employers.
• They were unable to demonstrate, and medical science was unable to detect, which employer exposed each of them to the one fatal fibre. The House of Lords decided that if a claimant could show that one employer had materially increased the risk of contracting mesothelioma, they were entitled to claim compensation from that one employer.
• This approach provided justice for the claimant in this particular case but could be unfair to a defendant employer who may not actually have been to blame. This means that this new stage that has been introduced by the court system does not provide a balance between the competing interests. 
• However one of the disadvantages of this system is that the rules do not provide consistent outcomes as it must be decided whether the intervening cause is sufficiently significant to free the defendant from liability. This means that it is very difficult for lawyers to inform their clients whether or not they will receive compensation or not. This also comes into conflict with the main aim of the legal system which is to make sure that the law is clear so that lay people can understand what they are being liable for. 
• Another argument relating to causation and remoteness is regarding the intervening acts which allow the defendant to be free from being liable if the defendant didn’t cause the victim’s injuries. One of the benefits of this system is that it reduces the risk of a compensation culture due to the defendant not being liable for actions that they did not perform. Furthermore it allows for a fair balance between the different competing interests.
• This was shown in Lamb V Camden Council (1981), the claimants house was flooded due to the defendants negligence. The claimant vacated but squatters moved in and caused considerable damage. The council was not liable for the damage caused by the squatters as the chain of causation was broken.
• One of the arguments relating to causation and remoteness is with regarding to factual causation. One of the benefits of this test is that it is generally fair, as the but for test allows all claimants to be treated in the same way. This was shown in Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969) where the facts allowed the factual causation test to apply in a straightforward manner. This allows for the lawyers to apply the law appropriately to different cases. Thus leading to a just outcome, which is the main purpose of the legal system.
• However one of the drawbacks of this test is that judges will ignore any problems applying the “But for” test and find policy reason in order to give a just result. This was shown in the case Chester V Ashfar (2004) where a consultant surgeon failed to warn a patient about the risk associated with an operation. She had the operation which worsened her condition. This will lead to unjust outcomes which will go against the main aim of tort which is to provide a just remedy for the claimant.