This is based on Tort Law UK

The singular composite test in the case of Caparo, needed foreseeability for the damages and to prove negligence. But in the genereal equation 1934, they needed factual causation, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation of Damage (but for test, is a yes), and in Legal Causation (remoteness/foreseeability, must be a no) to prove negligence.

Why in the general equation (under legal causation) there's no need foreseeability, but in the case of Caparo they needed foreseeability to prove negligence? Explain why in a detailed manner.

*If there are references on where the answer is taken from, please attach the link below