Lorem Hot on the heels of Fearn v Tate, on 10 May 2023 the Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in another case concerning nuisance, Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd and another [2023] UKSC 16.
Generally speaking, a nuisance occurs when a person carries out an act on their land which unduly interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of the claimant's land. A nuisance can be a one-off event or continuing. When a one-off nuisance occurs, under the rules of limitation a person has six years from the date of the nuisance event to bring their claim. When a continuing nuisance occurs, a new cause of action arises every day, so in effect that cut-off date is forever postponed.
The facts in Jalla concerned a claim for nuisance arising from an oil spill which occurred on 20 December 2011. The claimants issued their claim on 13 December 2017 (ie just before the 6 year period ran out). During 2018 and 2019, after those six years had expired, the claimants applied to amend their claim. Shell, the Defendant, argued that the applications were made after the expiry of the limitation period, and so should not be allowed. The claimants countered that the nuisance was continuing, because the oil had not been removed from their land and continued to cause them damage.
The Supreme Court confirmed that for a nuisance to be said to be continuing, the act that causes the nuisance must be ongoing on a continuing basis. There must be a repeated activity or an ongoing state of affairs for which the defendant is responsible. The Court held that whether or not oil remained on the claimants' land, and therefore the damage caused by it, was irrelevant to the question of whether or not the act itself that caused the damage was a continuing nuisance. The key to establishing continuing nuisance is whether something is ongoing for which the Defendant is responsible, and this usually happens on the Defendants' land. In Jalla, no further oil spill had occurred since 20 December 2011. Accordingly, there was no ongoing action by Shell which constituted a continuing nuisance. The applicable limitation period was six years from the date of the 20 December 2011 oil spill. Jalla was not allowed to amend its claim to bring in claim for later damages.
This is a useful (and coming from the Supreme Court) definitive guide to what is a one-off, and what is a continuing nuisance, and the role of the Limitation Act in that debate.
