Jones v Yates

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Jones, against a majority judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The respondent is Yates. The applicant's submission is that the majority decision below erroneously denied foreseeability and causation for heroin-related loss and damage arising from a tortious act. The applicant contends that this decision directly conflicts with an earlier, unreported decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in *Grey v Simpson*.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the majority of the New South Wales Court of Appeal correctly determined that the applicant had failed to establish a causal link between the respondent's breach of duty and the applicant's heroin-related damage, and whether such damage was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of that breach. The applicant argued that the reasoning of the majority, particularly concerning the concept of *novus actus interveniens* and the assessment of causation and foreseeability, was inconsistent with the principles established in *Grey v Simpson*.

The applicant's counsel highlighted that Justice Meagher based his judgment on the grounds of *novus actus*, finding that the taking of heroin by the applicant constituted an intervening act. Justice Samuels, while accepting the factual findings, also concluded that the applicant had not established the necessary causal link and that the damage was not reasonably foreseeable. The applicant submitted that Justice Samuels' explicit findings on causation and foreseeability, as quoted from page 76 of the application book, were in direct conflict with the lead judgment in *Grey v Simpson*, which had found differently on similar facts.