Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd

The appeal concerns the tort of private nuisance in relation to an oil spill that occurred off the coast of Nigeria in December 2011. The key issue is whether there was a continuing nuisance, which would mean the cause of action for the tort of private nuisance would continue to accrue, day by day, until the oil was removed from the claimants’ land. The claimants argue that the oil spill constituted a continuing nuisance because the oil was still present on their land. The defendants maintain that the oil spill was a one-off event and that there was no continuing nuisance.

Stuart-Smith J and the Court of Appeal both rejected the claimants' argument. Stuart-Smith J held that the oil spill was a single, one-off event that gave rise to a single cause of action. The Court of Appeal, with whom the Supreme Court agreed, also held that the oil spill was a single, one-off event that gave rise to a single cause of action. The Court of Appeal rejected the claimants' argument that the oil spill constituted a continuing nuisance and held that the cause of action accrued once the oil reached the claimants’ land.

The Supreme Court also rejected the claimants' argument that the oil spill constituted a continuing nuisance. The Supreme Court held that a continuing nuisance is one where there is repeated activity by the defendant or an ongoing state of affairs for which the defendant is responsible that causes continuing undue interference with the use and enjoyment of the claimant’s land. In this case, the oil spill was a one-off event and there was no repeated activity by the defendants or an ongoing state of affairs for which the defendants were responsible that caused continuing undue interference with the use and enjoyment of the claimants’ land.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that there was no continuing nuisance in this case. The cause of action for the tort of private nuisance accrued once the oil reached the claimants’ land. The Supreme Court also refused the defendants permission to cross-appeal on two points of law that had not been argued in the lower courts.