Causation in Maltese tort law and jurisprudence : examining the criteria employed

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to review the current status of Maltese law on causation in the light of local judgments. Maltese jurisprudence lacks a distinct juridical framework for causation. Since the various aspects of tort law necessitate an inquiry into the particular circumstances of the case, all cases on tort are mainly tackled through an examination on the merits, rather than through the application of particular rules on causation. This thesis seeks to consider how far Continental and Common law theories on causation are reflected in Maltese cases, to examine in detail the extent, if at all, the central causation ideas of „but-for‟, „proximate cause‟ and „contribution to harm‟ are explored by the courts, and to clarify their position in this regard. Are the courts spending enough time discussing causation issues? Has the concept of causation evolved throughout the years? While it is acknowledged that variations and ambiguity as to the application of this concept are to be expected, bearing in mind that more often than not, the courts are adapting a standard notion to different facts and circumstances, this study hopes to at least shed light on the main trends used by the Maltese courts and to try to extract a coherent concept of causation. The courts‟ practice is examined and several decisions are presented to illustrate the practical application of these rules. Comparative law is also examined with the prospect of enabling a better understanding of these notions and to further evaluate the prevailing Maltese position in this regard.