In Australian negligence law, proof that a defendant's tortious conduct materially increased the risk of harm is insufficient, standing alone, to establish causation; the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that the conduct caused or materially contributed to the harm. The English approach from Fairchild, Barker v Corus and Sienkiewicz, which permits liability based on material increase in risk, has not been adopted in Australia and any such development must come from the High Court. The reasoning in Stamoulis equating material increase in risk with material contribution is doubted and may be inconsistent with Tabet v Gett. The question whether material increase in risk can found causation remains open for the High Court to determine.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 33 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 33 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.