Causation, remoteness, scope of duty and the Rubenstein decision
Oftentimes, based on the facts of a case, what justice requires is reasonably clear; yet, when the clever arguments of the defendant’s lawyers have to be dealt with, the Judge faces difficult, even insurmountable obstacles as he seeks the legal justification for the result which he knows (or feels)...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2601 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4559/viewcontent/causation.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Oftentimes, based on the facts of a case, what justice requires is reasonably clear; yet, when the clever arguments of the defendant’s lawyers have to be dealt with, the Judge faces difficult, even insurmountable obstacles as he seeks the legal justification for the result which he knows (or feels) is the correct one. Rubenstein v HSBC1is such a case. The Rubensteinjudgment is not easy to digest, for several reasons. First, the claims traversed statutory duty, tort of negligence and contract and, along with that, the perennial vexed question of whether different paths should lead to the same result. Second, the core of the decision involves related arguments and issues of causation, remoteness, foreseeability and scope of duty. Third, the reader would have been much assisted if the appeal Judge had been more systematic by segregating the discussion of the law from its application to the facts. |
|---|