Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656

Facts

  • The case concerned an incident at a quarry operated by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), where two experienced shotfirers, James Shatwell and his brother George, were employed to detonate explosives.
  • ICI provided strict safety protocols, requiring use of a testing device to ensure electrical circuits were safe before detonation.
  • The Shatwell brothers disregarded the prescribed protocol and manually tested the circuit, resulting in an explosion and serious injuries to both men.
  • James Shatwell sued ICI, alleging negligence in the company’s failure to enforce the safety protocols sufficiently.
  • The dispute focused on whether ICI was liable for injuries sustained by employees who knowingly exposed themselves to risk by ignoring safety procedures.

Issues

  1. Whether the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applied to employees who, with full knowledge, voluntarily consented to undertake a hazardous act contrary to established safety procedures.
  2. Whether an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace is absolute, or whether it can be limited by an employee’s voluntary assumption of known risks in breach of protocol.
  3. Whether ICI was liable for injuries suffered by the employees despite their conscious and informed decision to disregard mandatory safety measures.

Decision

  • The House of Lords unanimously found for ICI, holding that the Shatwell brothers had voluntarily assumed the risks associated with their actions.
  • The court determined the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria was applicable, as the brothers' decision to ignore safety protocols was informed and freely made.
  • It was held that ICI’s duty to provide a safe workplace did not extend to protecting employees from dangers they knowingly and willingly brought upon themselves.
  • The employer’s liability was limited where employees deliberately chose to disobey clear safety rules.
  • The action against ICI was dismissed.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria bars recovery where an individual voluntarily, with full knowledge, consents to a risk.
  • Consent must be voluntary, informed, and unequivocal for the defence to succeed.
  • An employer’s duty to ensure workplace safety is not absolute; it does not cover risks voluntarily accepted by employees who intentionally breach safety protocols.
  • Both employers and employees share responsibility for workplace safety.

Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified that an employer is not liable where employees, with knowledge and by choice, disregard safety protocols and thus voluntarily accept the risk of injury; the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applies, limiting employer liability in such circumstances.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal