McGhee vs National Coal Board
Citation: [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL)
Jurisdiction : United Kingdom
Plaintiff : Mr. McGhee
Defendant : National Coal Board
Facts :
Mr. McGhee worked as a brick kiln laborer for the National Coal Board, enduring long hours in hot, dusty, and unhygienic conditions. Each day exposed his skin and health to significant strain, and over time he developed dermatitis, a painful skin condition that affected his comfort and ability to work. Medical experts confirmed that while the dusty environment carried an inherent risk, the provision of shower or washing facilities immediately after work would have materially reduced the likelihood of contracting the disease. Despite knowing this, the employer failed to provide any such facilities, neglecting a simple but important measure to protect employees’ health. McGhee’s claim did not allege that the working conditions themselves were negligent; it focused on the employer’s omission in safeguarding the wellbeing of its workforce, which materially contributed to his illness. The case illustrates the tangible impact of neglecting practical precautions in hazardous workplaces.
Issues :
1. Whether an employer’s failure to take reasonable precautions that heighten the risk of disease can be regarded as contributing to its occurrence.
2. Whether courts should relax the strict “but for” causation requirement in cases where medical science cannot precisely establish the cause.
3. Whether it is fair to allow an employer to avoid liability when negligence clearly increases the risk to employees’ health, despite scientific uncertainty.
Arguments :
Plaintiff’s Argument:
Mr. McGhee argued that the National Coal Board’s negligence did not lie in the dusty and demanding nature of his work, but in their failure to provide simple and effective precautions, specifically washing or showering facilities after each shift. The Board knew that these facilities would have significantly reduced the risk of dermatitis but failed to act, thereby breaching their duty to protect employees’ health. Although medical science could not definitively prove that the absence of showers directly caused his illness, it was clear that this omission materially increased the risk. Mr. McGhee emphasized that the law should rely on common sense and fairness, rather than demand impossible scientific certainty. To deny liability in such circumstances would leave workers without remedy. The lack of showers should therefore be treated as materially contributing to his illness, establishing the employer’s responsibility.
Defendant’s Argument:
The National Coal Board contended that Mr. McGhee’s dermatitis arose from the general working conditions, which inherently carried a risk of the disease, regardless of whether washing facilities were provided. Medical evidence could only show a reduced risk and could not prove causation on the balance of probabilities. They argued that negligence requires proof, not speculation, and treating increased risk as causation would unfairly expand employer liability. Since McGhee could not demonstrate that showers would have prevented his illness, the claim should fail.
Decisions :
Court of Session (Scotland):
Initially, Mr. McGhee’s claim was dismissed by the Court of Session. Both the Lord Ordinary and the Inner House held that proof of increased risk was insufficient. They applied the strict “but for” test, meaning McGhee needed to show, on the balance of probabilities, that his dermatitis would not have developed if showers had been provided. Since medical science could not establish this fact, they concluded that causation had not been proven.
House of Lords:
The House of Lords allowed Mr. McGhee’s appeal.
Lord Kilbrandon explained that when an employer knows of a risk, is aware of a simple precaution, fails to implement it, and the employee later develops the disease, the law should not demand impossible proof of causation. Requiring absolute scientific certainty would place an unfair burden on workers.
Lord Salmon emphasized that the employer’s negligence materially increased the risk and must be regarded as contributing to the disease. He noted it would be unjust for employers to avoid liability simply because medical science cannot determine the exact mechanism. Using an example, he explained that whether showers reduced the risk from 90% to 52% or vice versa, liability should not depend on percentages.
Other Lords agreed that causation is a practical question of fact, to be decided with common sense. In this case, it was evident that the lack of showers materially contributed to McGhee’s dermatitis.
Author :
1. Fuad Hasan
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
