The "but for" rule is a rule of exclusion, in that the defendant's conduct is not a cause of the event, if the event would have occurred without it. (Use But For Test in most circumstances). The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in New South Wales v Mikhael adds to the growing body of superior court authority which discusses the requirements for factual causation under s 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and affirms the place of the “but for” test in determining causation in negligence.. Facts of the case. The test was not satisfied as it was not shown to be more probable than not that, but for the absence of security personnel, the shootings would not have taken place. Even though “but for” causation was made out in this case and was considered to be the correct test, the Court reminded practitioners that where there is a difficulty with separating out the effects of concurrent negligent and non-negligent causes the material contribution test will apply. The basic test for establishing causation is the "but-for" test in which the defendant will be liable only if the claimant’s damage would not have occurred "but for" his negligence. The impossibility must be due to factors that are outside of the plaintiff's control; for example, current limits of scientific knowledge. The general test used by the courts to determine factual causation is commonly known as the “but-for” test. If the claimant’s injury would have occurred irrespective of the defendant’s negligence, the negligence is not causative of the claimant’s loss. Alternatively, the defendant will not be liable if the damage would, or could on the balance of probabilities , have occurred anyway, regardless of his or her negligence. The basic test for causation remains the “but for” test even in multiple-cause injuries. "But For Test" is useful when you cannot prove that the Defendants negligent act actually caused plaintiff's injury. The "but for" rule explains most cases when limited solely to the issue of causation, but it does not resolve one type of situation: if two causes concur to bring about an event, and either one of them, operating independently, would have been sufficient to cause the … What this rule imposes is the test of whether the financial loss sustained by the claimant would have been suffered without the negligent act of the defendant. First, it must be impossible for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injury using the "but for" test. In general, negligence is determined on the basis of the ‘but for’ test – the plaintiff must show on a balance of probabilities that “but for” the defendant’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. The plaintiff bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that “but for” the negligence of each defendant, the injury would not have occurred. according to the “but for” test, that the defendant’s negligent act or omission did in fact cause the claimant’s damage (causation in fact); by establishing that the damage is still sufficiently proximate in law to hold the defendant liable to compensate the victim (causation in law – more commonly referred to as remoteness of damage). The “but for” test In many claims for professional negligence, a relevant test for causation is the “but for” or sine qua non rule. The but for test is the classic and necessary inquiry for factual causation: the defendant’s conduct was a cause of the plaintiff’s harm if the harm would not have occurred absent the defendant’s negligence— i.e., without which the harm would not have occurred.13 An action is not