He ruled the but for test for causation does apply in this case, and when correctly applied leads to the conclusion the valuer is liable for the whole loss flowing from the negligent valuation. actor’s negligent conduct is not a substantial factor in bringing about harm to. “But For” and “Substantial Factor” are Two Different Ways to Test Whether Defendant Caused Plaintiff’s Injury. A test in tort law linking the tort and the damages (aka causation), which is stated as: but for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured.. This test would in turn help determine what the position of the claimant would have been had it not been for the defendant’s breach of duty. That is, a defendant should only be liable for damages that he caused the plaintiff. But For Test. Substantial Factor Test 3.) Factual causation. Tort law uses a ‘but for’ test in order to establish a factual link between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries of the claimant. The ‘but for’ causation is a test used by the court to establish fault of the defendant which caused damage to the claimant. But For Test 2.) FSCO has released the appeal decision of State Farm and Sabadash (Appeal P16-00029) confirming the correct test to be applied for causation in accident benefits cases is the “but for” test. The decision highlights the fine line between the application of the 'common sense evaluation of the causal chain' and 'but for' causation tests. If it would, that conduct is not the cause of the harm. The long accepted test of factual causation is the ‘but-for’ test. If you study law, sooner or later you will come across the issue of causation. Use when dealing with a single defendant and only one cause Applying The "But For Test" ... Is another way of establishing factual causation in tort law. Summers Test. Subsection (1) of section 432 provides: ‘Except as stated in Subsection (2), the. The question is entirely one of fact. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), the Supreme Court held that Title VII retaliation claims (unlike “status-based discrimination claims, i.e., those claims under Section 2000e-2(a)) must be proved according to traditional principles of “but-for” causation, not the “lessened causation test stated in Section 2000e-2(m).” Factual Causation. The decision confirms the Kooragang test is to be applied when considering whether there has been a break in the chain of causation between the original injury and a consequential condition/injury. In short, Director’s Delegate David Evans found that the “but for” test is “paramount” in determining causation in accident benefits cases. One asks whether the claimant’s harm would have occurred in any event without, (that is but-for) the defendant’s conduct. ‘substantial factor’ test subsumes the traditional ‘but for’ test of causation. 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.