Of the numerous tests used to determine causation, the but-for test is considered to be one of the weaker ones. High Court 1. The determination of factual causation under s 5D(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (CLA) is a statutory statement of the "but for" test of causation.That is, the plaintiff would not have suffered injury but for the defendant's negligence. Causation: Forseeability v Natural Consequences Stephen Shute * Two months after the Court of Appeal’s troublesome decision in R v Cheshire,’ the High Court of Australia was also confronted with the complexities of causation in Royall v The Queen.2 The court’s decision is … The strongest objection taken by the defendants was that the trial judge failed to apply the correct legal test concerning the question of causation. It held that the “but for” test of factual causation in s 5D of the CLA was applicable. The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?" The High Court decided the case on the issue of causation. The Court held that mere facilitation of a tort will not suffice to impose joint liability. Delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Nulty, Lord Justice Toulson stated that the balance of probabilities test requires “that the court must be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred is stronger that the case for not so believing”. The but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument, finding instead that in cases where independent sufficient cause is not established, but-for causation must specifically be proven, conceptualizing the two as mutually exclusive theories of causation. The test was not satisfied as it was not shown to be more probable than not that, but for the absence of security … November 29, 2018 In Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Limited v Lifeplan Australia Friendly Society Limited  HCA 43 , the parties each marketed and provided funeral plans. Strong v Woolworths Limited  HCA 5. As described above, the Court rejected these submissions. The Texas Supreme Court articulated the substantial-factor causation test — which, it turns out, is not about causation at all but rather the outer limits of legal liability. There are often two reasons cited for its weakness. The FCA submitted that a “but for” causation test was sufficient for the purpose of section 27 of FSMA and that the activities carried out by CLP fell within the regulated activities of arranging or advising on investments. It held that the "but for" test of factual causation in s 5D of the CLA was applicable. Judgment date: 7 March 2012.