Causation in Equitable Compensation: But For Test without Novus Actus Interveniens?

Abstract

<p>Closer scrutiny of cases subsequent to AIB Group (UK) PLC v Redler (AIB) suggests that lower courts have consistently disobeyed the AIB rule by adopting certain tactics, such as intentionally excluding and improperly interpreting the AIB rule. Various Claimants v Giambrone & Law (A Firm) (Giambrone) is one such case. Being a Court of Appeal decision, Giambrone has referential significance for subsequent courts in their interpretations and applications of the AIB rule. The existing literature on Giambrone has mainly focused on the active–passive-duty distinction made by Jackson LJ; how Jackson LJ applied the AIB rule to the facts in Giambrone has not yet been subject to in-depth scrutiny. This question is of scholarly and practical significance due to a discrepancy in his Lordship’s ruling. While Jackson LJ stated in Giambrone that his Lordship had strictly followed the AIB rule, his Lordship’s judgment contained a discrepancy between the application of the causation test in Giambrone and the causation test in AIB. It is unclear whether such a discrepancy was caused by Jackson LJ’s misunderstanding of the AIB rule or by his Lordship’s intentional choice. This short article fills the gap in the existing literature by examining this inconsistency. It identifies the areas where Jackson LJ’s analysis departs from the AIB rule and the insights this departure might have for future cases.</p>