ABSTRACT
The courts have wrestled for some years with what Lord Reid meant in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 when he said that ‘[the plaintiff] must make it appear at least that on a balance of probabilities the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury’. Some have taken this to mean that ‘material contribution’ is something different to classic ‘but for’ causation. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that this is not correct; that ‘material contribution’ in Bonnington is an example of, not an exception to, ‘but for’ causation; and to argue that this misreading of the case should no longer be perpetuated.
Foster, Neil James, Material Contribution in Bonnington: Not An Exception To ‘But For’ Causation (January 31, 2022). University of Western Australia Law Review, volume 49, no 1, 2022.
First posted 2022-03-22 15:30:16
Leave a Reply