Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
Employer liability for an employee’s personal injury and the defence of volenti non fit injuria.
Facts
Two brothers who were qualified shot-firers sustained injuries at their employer’s quarries. The employees had been short of wire to test a circuit for firing explosives from a sheltered distance. The brothers disobeyed their employer’s instructions and mandatory regulations and tested the electric circuit with the insufficient wiring, causing them to sustain injuries.
Issues
The causal connection between the employees’ negligence, for which the employer would be vicariously liable, and the injuries sustained was established. The question arose as to whether the employer could rely on the defence of volenti non fit injuria as the brothers in neglect of express instructions and mandatory precautions, with knowledge of the associated risks.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that an employer is able to rely on volenti non fit injuria as a complete defence to vicarious liability when the employees act in deliberate neglect of the employer’s instructions and in knowledge of the associated risks. On the facts of the case, although the employee may be vicariously liable for their employees’ negligence, the two brothers had contributed to their own injuries by acting in deliberate neglect of the employer’s instructions and statutory regulations. Particularly, the employer had been in full compliance with applicable statutory duties and ensured that all employees were aware of the relevant regulations. Thus, the defence of volenti non fit injuria was held to apply and the employer is not vicariously liable for the injuries.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656. The legal principles described — that an employer may rely on volenti non fit injuria as a complete defence to vicarious liability where employees deliberately disregard both employer instructions and statutory regulations with full knowledge of the risks — remain good law. There have been no subsequent statutory changes or leading appellate decisions that have overturned or materially qualified this principle in the context of employer liability and the volenti defence. Readers should note, however, that the defence of volenti non fit injuria is applied very narrowly in employment contexts, and that in many modern cases the courts favour contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 as a partial rather than complete defence. The article also contains a minor but potentially confusing drafting error in the Decision section, which states ‘the employee may be vicariously liable for their employees’ negligence’ — this should read ‘the employer may be vicariously liable.’ This does not affect the accuracy of the legal principles described but may cause confusion for student readers.
