Topic 3

The 'but for' test does not address multiple causes.

• true

• false

What did the case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 deal with?

• contraction

• loss of chance

• concurrent/simultaneous causes

• expansion

Which of the following cases DID NOT deal with loss of chance?

• Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2

• Kay v Ayrshire Health Board [1987] 2 All ER 417

• Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750

• Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Company [2007] UKHL 39 (pleural plaques)

What is the general rule on causation?

Answer explanation

D’s act/omission must have caused or made a material contribution to the damage

Which case established the general rule on causation?

• Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] 1 All ER 613

• McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1

• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068

• Gray v Thames Trains [2009] UKHL 33

The case of Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 421 provided what to the general rule on causation?

Answer explanation

Refinement

Which case provided expansion to the law on causation?

• Sienkiewics v Greif (UK) [2011] 2 WLR 523

• McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1

• Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572 

• Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871

What was introduced in the case of McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (dermatitis)?

• the concept of material increase in risk

• loss of chance

• the general rule

• application to cumulative disease

Which of the following TWO cases dealt with contraction?

• Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Company [2007] UKHL 39 (pleural plaques)

• Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871

• Kay v Ayrshire Health Board [1987] 2 All ER 417

• Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750

What is the exception to the general rule on casuation?

Answer explanation

The Fairchild Exception