ABSTRACT
Causation is routinely described by English and Australian appellate decisions as a matter of common sense.1 However, such an analysis in practice is often simplistic and can be unhelpful when the occasion arises for legal advice to be given, for cases to be run in court and for issues of causation to be proved. It broadcasts beguilingly mixed messages to expert witnesses seeking to assist decision-makers to evaluate complex issues such as whether a breach of duty has caused an adverse outcome or is likely to produce such an outcome. It is dependent upon the unarticulated notion that decision-makers are able, unassisted by rules, guidelines or explanations, to reach "the right result" about difficult matters such as connections, influences, aetiologies and causalities by employing some kind of wisdom or intuition. This is curial mysticism at its most problematic.
