This is known as the thin skull rule.[12] However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,[13] or another unpredictable event.

It could be broken by the intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,[17] or another unpredictable event.

However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct, or another unpredictable event.

However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct, or another unpredictable event.

It could be broken by the intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,[18] or another unpredictable event.

However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,[14] or another unpredictable event

This is known as the thin skull rule.[17] However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,[18] or another unpredictable event.

This is known as the thin skull rule.[12] However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct,[13] or another unpredictable event.

According to the Court of Appeal, the criminal intervention of a third party did not break Mazda’s chain of responsibility (novus actus interveniens).

Contrary to the suggestion made by the Court of Appeal and by my colleague, this is not tantamount to saying that the fraud itself constituted a novus actus interveniens.

Rather, he would have denied an award for past wage loss while incarcerated on the doctrine of novus actus interveniens – a new act intervenes.