2025/07/01 by James Goudkamp, Eleni Katsampouka
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Health Professions · Social Sciences · #Business #Finance #Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems #Legal principles and applications #Liability #Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues #Strict liability #Tort
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s0008197325100706
published in The Cambridge Law Journal 84(2), 279-291 (Cambridge University Press)
openalex publication_date 2025/07/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Abstract This article addresses the doctrine of remoteness in tort in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Armstead further attenuates an already weak control on tortious liability. In outline, it does so in two ways: first, by establishing that contractual liabilities incurred as a result of tortiously caused property damage comprise non-remote damage provided that those liabilities represent a reasonable pre-estimate of the counterparty’s loss; and, secondly, by allocating the burden of proof in respect of remoteness to defendants. This article explores these rules. It contends, in particular, that the first collides with the fundamental principle that the extent of the claimant’s loss in tort is irrelevant to the issue of remoteness while the second means that, oddly, the onus of proof in relation to remoteness in tort differs from that in contract.