A continuing nuisance: Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd [2023] UKSC 16

In Jalla the Supreme Court was required to decide whether the damage, which had been caused to the claimants’ land by the continued presence of oil on the land, which in turn had been caused by a spill from the defendants’ oil pipeline, constituted a continuing nuisance, the upshot of which was that a continuing cause of action accrued afresh from day to day. The court held that a continuing nuisance was a nuisance which continued day after day, or on another regular basis. In such cases, the cause of action continued afresh on a continuing basis. However, in Jalla the court held that there was no continuing nuisance, on the grounds that there was no repeated activity, or continuing state of affairs, which had been caused by the defendants. Rather, the leak was a one-off event, or isolated escape, which had been caused by the defendants. The cause of action was complete once the claimants’ land was affected by the oil spill. In short, there was no continuing cause of action for as long as the oil remained on the claimants’ land. Whereas the presence of the oil on the claimants’ land may have ranked as a ‘nuisance’ in common parlance, the continuing presence of the oil on the land did not rank as a nuisance in law. The author concludes that Jalla illustrates the confusion which stems from the fact that the concept of nuisance is not clearly defined.