Causation in negligence
Causation in negligence has two parts: factual causation (the “but-for” test — would the harm have occurred but for the defendant's breach?) and legal causation (whether the chain is broken by an intervening act, a novus actus interveniens).
Last reviewed 14 June 2026
Factual causation uses the but-for test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428). Where several causes operate, “material contribution” (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw) or, in limited cases, “material increase in risk” (Fairchild) may apply.
Legal causation asks whether a later event breaks the chain: a free, deliberate and informed act of a third party or the claimant, or an unforeseeable natural event, may be a novus actus interveniens that relieves the defendant of liability for the later harm.
Key cases
- Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22
Frequently asked questions
What is the but-for test in negligence?
The test for factual causation: would the claimant's harm have occurred but for the defendant's breach? If not, factual causation is established (Barnett v Chelsea).
What is a novus actus interveniens?
A new intervening act — by a third party, the claimant, or nature — that breaks the chain of legal causation and ends the defendant's liability for the later harm.
Related doctrines
Revising tort law for an exam?
Get structured revision notes and timed SQE1 practice that build on Causation in negligence.
Revising law for an exam?
Get the free “50 Must-Know Cases for UK Law Exams” guide — grouped by module with the ratio for each, sent to your inbox.