Remoteness meaning

Checklist This Checklist sets out the key considerations when judging if a professional negligence claim can properly be advanced in relation to the scope of the duty, causation and remoteness. It is aimed at deciding whether the losses alleged fall within the professional’s duty by applying the analysis model set out by the Supreme Court in its 2021 rulings in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton and Khan v Meadows. For comprehensive guidance on causation and remoteness in this field, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims. Note: in Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s use of a six-point checklist when assessing whether a claimant car-hirer could recover sums payable to the hire company for loss of use after third-party negligence damaged the vehicle—the issue in that case did not concern the scope of duty, so a six-point checklist for deciding if recoverable losses fell within the scope of duty had no application (at para [73])...

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Cost and funding Case management Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Court information HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has issued a revised English Form N215 Certificate of Service for civil proceedings, which also brings in a new statement of truth. While the layout has been updated, the details required remain unchanged, with extra notes added to assist with completing the form. For further detail, see: HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service—LNB News 27/01/2026 36. Additional permanent courtrooms to boost capacity The government will make four former Nightingale Courts in Fleetwood, Telford, Chichester and Cirencester permanent, creating 11 additional courtrooms across England and Wales to increase capacity for criminal, family and civil work and help cut delays. For further detail, see:...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—15 February 2024 In this issue: Road traffic accidents Clinical negligence Costs Court and the legal profession Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information New Q&As Road traffic accidents Pure economic loss and remoteness In Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court held that a bailee’s possessory interest in goods is sufficient to found a claim against a third party whose negligence damages those goods. The appeal succeeded: a car-hirer was entitled to sue the negligent third party in tort to recover the contractual daily loss-of-use sum owed to the vehicle owner (the bailor, hire company) arising from the damage. The court also issued succinct guidance on core principles governing negligence claims for harm to tangible property, and on the limits of remoteness. Further, the Supreme Court confirmed that once a claimant has shown that...

Care homes, construction defects and commercial loss—guidance from the Technology and Construction Court (Toppan & Abbey v Simply) (1) Toppan Holdings Ltd, (2) Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Limited v August 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2025] EWHC 1691 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision will be of interest to the construction industry in a number of key respects: Contractors and designers will be expected to meet rigorous fire safety compliance standards The TCC has reaffirmed the established position that defects will be treated seriously, even when latent and uncovered only after practical completion. As emphasised in His Honour Judge Bowdery KC’s judgment, the court will take a dim view of parties who appear to ‘underestimate’ or ‘under‑appreciate’ the consequences of fire safety defects. The judge recorded on several occasions that the ‘appalling’ defects posed ‘a real risk to the health and safety of the elderly residents’, and that the presence of ‘potentially life‑threatening defects’ must...

Overview This Practice Note forms part of our LLB Contract Law series for law students. It surveys the remedies for breach of contract, with damages at the heart of the common law response. Setting remedies within the framework of contract, it explains when a party may terminate—most notably for breach of conditions and of innominate (or ‘intermediate’) terms. It then sets out the expectation principle from Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, stressing that an award should put the claimant in the position they would have been in had performance occurred. The Note next traces the principal constraints on recovery—causation, remoteness, and the duty to mitigate—and discusses leading cases on mitigation to show how these limits operate even once breach is proved. It also considers alternative measures—expectation, reliance and, in rare cases, restitutionary recovery—before addressing quantification, including the contrast between ‘difference in value’ and ‘cost of cure’ illustrated by Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344. Finally, it deals with non-pecuniary loss and the contemporary approach to liquidated...

Types of special purpose vehicle and orphan trust The deployment of special purpose vehicle structures is widespread in aviation finance. They offer lenders several advantages, including tax benefits and a bankruptcy-remote platform for the financing. A special purpose vehicle (SPV), also known as a single purpose company (SPC), is a legal entity established for a limited aim; in aviation finance this is commonly to own an aircraft for a particular transaction. There are numerous forms of SPV used in aviation finance, with the principal categories being: subsidiary companies orphan trusts limited partnerships Each of these is considered below. The type of SPV selected will vary on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Subsidiary companies Subsidiary companies are typically limited liability companies incorporated in a tax-friendly jurisdiction...

For guidance on causation in clinical negligence matters, refer to Practice Note: Causation and material contribution in clinical negligence claims. Did the breach cause the injury to the claimant? The baseline for proving causation is the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the claimant have suffered the harm in question? In a personal injury claim alleging negligence or breach of statutory duty, the claimant must show the defendant owed and breached a duty, and that this breach resulted in loss or damage. It is helpful to consider the claim in key components: did a duty of care exist? was that duty breached by the defendant? is there a causal link between the breach and the loss or damage? what is the nature and scope of the loss or damage? The claimant bears the burden of proving the breach caused the damage by establishing that, but for the breach, the damage would not...