placeholder-image coin

Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd & Anor [2023] UKSC 16 (10 May 2023)

Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd & Anor [2023] UKSC 16 (10 May 2023)


Citation:Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd & Anor [2023] UKSC 16 (10 May 2023)

Link to case on BAILII.

Rule of thumb:In environmental nuisance cases, when does the 6 year time bar limit start running from? This starts running from the time that the environmental defect leading to noxious substances escaping is actually repaired; it does not run from the noxious substances released actually being cleaned up.


Background facts:The facts of this case were that an oil pipe burst and spilt oil everywhere. This was attended to and the burst pipe re-sealed as quickly as possible. An environmental nuisance case was raised by the residents over 6 years after the burst pipe was actually re-sealed. As this was raised over 6 years from the pipe being re-sealed Shell argued that the environmental nuisance action was time-barred.


Parties argued:This came down to time-bar. Jalla argued that time-bar ran from the date when the organisation actually cleaned up the mess. Shell argued that time-bar ran from the point of sealing off the cause of the environmental nuisance.


Court held:The Court upheld the arguments of Shell. They affirmed that time-bar on nuisance actions runs from the point when the nuisance is actually stopped. They affirmed that time-bar does not run from the actual damages of the nuisance being ameliorated. Jalla’s case against Shell was time-barred from any potential damages being obtained.


centered image

Ratio-decidendi:

‘There was no continuing nuisance in this case (and there would be no continuing nuisance in the example of the one-off flood) because, outside the claimants’ land, there was no repeated activity by the defendants or an ongoing state of affairs for which the defendants were responsible that was causing continuing undue interference with the use and enjoyment of the claimants’ land. The leak was a one-off event or an isolated escape. The oil pipe was no longer leaking after six hours and it is being assumed for the purposes of this appeal that the oil reached the Nigerian Atlantic shoreline (and hence the claimants’ land) within weeks rather than months of 20 December 2011 (see para 7 above). Although this was not an issue in Sedleigh-Denfield, the cause of action in that case accrued and was complete once the claimant’s land had been flooded by the isolated escape: there was no continuing cause of action for as long as the land remained flooded. So here the cause of action accrued and was complete once the claimants’ land had been affected by the oil: there was no continuing cause of action for as long as the oil remained on the land’, Lord Burrows at 37.


Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.