Interesting discussion about why "but for" causation is not enough. Lawyers, would I be right in thinking that the following is an example of why it's not enough in the case of direct discrimination? Ben and the judges seem to think it's obvious...
A places an order with B. This is the only order B has. B recruits to a role in order to fulfill it, and in the process discriminates against C. But for the order, B would not have recruited - but here A is clearly blameless.