"Fairbrother and another v Gabb and Co" CA, 23 May 2002. Appellants' (F) landlord was not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy on the termination of their existing lease. Respondent (G), a firm of solicitors failed to give F the correct advice as to the application date for the new tenancy. Lease negotiations broke down in particular over F's request for a break clause and F sought new premises. F brought negligence proceedings against G which G admitted. Dismissed: the dominant causation of the failure to agree the new lease was F's intransigence G's negligence was not considered.. On appeal F contended that causation had been established by the 'but for' test and intransigence was not provable. "Held" F's appeal allowed. 'But for' test necessary but not sufficient to prove causation and no case for intransigence. Negligence to be treated as an effective cause of loss would depend upon the circumstances of the case.