Traditional causation principles affirmed: the Chester decision seen in context

In Chester v Afshar, a gap was left open for claimants to argue that traditional causation principles should be by-passed in the interests of justice. In the case of Beary v Pall Mall Investments [2005] EWCA Civ 415, the Court of Appeal has virtually closed that gap. Professionals working in non-medical fields, along with their insurers, will breathe a sigh of relief at the decision. This does not mean, however, that the debate is closed.

While the application of Chester may have been narrowed, there remains scope for argument which claimants are bound to exploit if they fail to show that causation is established on normal grounds. The Court also touched on the correct way of assessing loss on equity-based investments. The full article summarises the current position on causation and addresses the implications of recent case law.