Contractual Remoteness and Psychiatric Injury in the High Court

The origin of the modern doctrine of remoteness of damage in the law of contract is Alderson B’s famous dictum in Hadley v Baxendale (‘Hadley’). That dictum stipulates that, absent ‘special circumstances’, loss resulting from a breach of contract is recoverable only when it arose ‘according to the usual course of things’, or could ‘reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it’. Persistent questions nevertheless remain regarding the precise content of the Hadley rule, and its most plausible justification, particularly following the House of Lords’ decision in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (‘The Achilleas’). A majority of that Court arguably there endorsed the proposition that, rather than being an externally imposed default rule, the contractual remoteness rule gives effect to an ‘assumption of responsibility’ derivable from the parties’ contract.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The University of Queensland Law Journal
Published
2025-06-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v44i2.13887
Primary Topic
Legal principles and applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Contractual Remoteness and Psychiatric Injury in the High Court

David Winterton
The University of Queensland Law Journal
Legal principles and applications
article

Contractual Remoteness and Psychiatric Injury in the High Court

David Winterton
article en

Abstract

The origin of the modern doctrine of remoteness of damage in the law of contract is Alderson B’s famous dictum in Hadley v Baxendale (‘Hadley’). That dictum stipulates that, absent ‘special circumstances’, loss resulting from a breach of contract is recoverable only when it arose ‘according to the usual course of things’, or could ‘reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it’. Persistent questions nevertheless remain regarding the precise content of the Hadley rule, and its most plausible justification, particularly following the House of Lords’ decision in Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (‘The Achilleas’). A majority of that Court arguably there endorsed the proposition that, rather than being an externally imposed default rule, the contractual remoteness rule gives effect to an ‘assumption of responsibility’ derivable from the parties’ contract.

The University of Queensland Law Journal
University of Hong Kong (HK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Legal principles and applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Contractual Remoteness and Psychiatric Injury in the High Court — David Winterton · The University of Queensland Law Journal (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS