Legal News

Oil spill found not to be a continuing nuisance (Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co)

Oil spill found not to be a continuing nuisance (Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co)
Published on: 03 February 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Oil spill found not to be a continuing nuisance (Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • One-off events and continuing causes of action
  • The distinction between nuisance and damage
  • Adoption, abatement, and the question of ‘control’
  • Case details

Article summary

Property Dispute analysis: This appeal raised an important issue regarding the tort of private nuisance—namely, whether an alleged failure to clean up an oil spill can amount to a ‘continuing nuisance’, with the effect that a fresh cause of action accrues each day the oil remains on a claimant’s land. The Court of Appeal found unanimously that a one-off event (in this case, a confined escape of oil) does not amount to a ‘continuous’ state of affairs in nuisance. Accordingly, a cause of action accrues (and the applicable limitation period will commence) when actionable damage is first suffered by the claimant. Written by Conway Blake, international counsel, at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents