Shell vs Jalla raises “Nuisance” and environmental damage issues.

A recent decision from the United Kingdom Supreme Court has brought nuisance as a cause of action for environmental damage into the spotlight. In Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company, ongoing environmental damage from an oil spill off the coast of Nigeria was not held to be an “ongoing nuisance”.  

It was necessary to establish an “ongoing nuisance” in the case, because bringing forward a claim for the initial spill was time-barred.  

It was argued by the defendant, Shell, that as there had been no repeated polluting activity (in other words, the oil spill was a “once off” event), an ongoing nuisance could not have occurred. Because of this limitation period having expired, claims for compensation because of the prolonged environmental damage must fail.   

Whilst the case was heard in the United Kingdom, it still raises relevant concerns and considerations when seeking nuisance as a cause of action for environmental damage in Australia. Decisions from the United Kingdom are potentially persuasive in Australian Courts. 

The case raises insight into the difficulties of seeking nuisance as a cause of action for environmental damage in Australia.  

Most notably, there needs to be continued action by a polluter to constitute an ongoing nuisance. The presence of ongoing environmental harm caused by an event is not considered an ongoing nuisance in the absence of such continued action. Accordingly, statutory limitations for bringing an action in nuisance may expire despite the ongoing presence of environmental harm.  

One lesson to draw from this case is that if you uncover environmental harm to your property because of the actions of a third party, you may need to act quickly to avoid any claims being time-barred.  

If you would like further information, contact us by telephone on (08) 6460 5179 or email admin@mfhlaw.com.au