ABSTRACT
At this level the court is holding as a matter of law that the defendant was not the cause of the claimant’s harm and the metaphor adopted is that of ‘remoteness’. The law can disregard some heads of damage, or indeed the whole of the harm suffered by the claimant, on the basis that it is too remote from the breach of obligation.72 In contrast to factual causation, remoteness ought in principle to be governed by precedent in that it is a question of law. Thus, the emphasis is not so much on the causal link itself between breach and harm as on the nature of the interest protected (Chapter 6 § 3) and the policy factors attaching to certain kinds of liability. Nevertheless, precedent is not always of help at the level of factual analysis given the infinite complexities of the topic in question and so what counts is the legal test applicable. Such a test is governed by precedent, but can vary depending on the cause of action in issue and the nature of the damage suffered by the victim.
