The appellant had taken out a licence to drill for oil on its land. To maximise its return it drilled at a deep level out under the claimant’s land. It now appealed against a finding that this was a trespass, and that it should pay damages on a licence basis.
Held: The drilling was a trespass for which damages would be payable. However there was no damage to the claimant’s land, and the damages were reduced to a nominal andpound;1000.
Aikens LJ said that it was logical to examine the question of whether there was a trespass as at July 2000 when, having taken account of the fact that the limitation period under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 for a claim in trespass is six years, the cause of action arose.
Judges:
Jacob, Aikens, Sullivan LJJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 579, [2010] Ch 100, [2010] 1 All ER 26, [2009] 25 EG 136, [2009] 2 P and CR 23, [2009] 3 WLR 1010, [2009] NPC 78
Links:
Statutes:
Petroleum (Production) Act 1934
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bocardo Sa v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and Another ChD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant had obtained a licence under the Act to extract oil from beneath its land. To do so, it had to drill at a deep level under the claimant’s land. It did so without the claimant’s permission. The claimant sought damages in trespass.
Cited by:
Appeal from – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Damages, Limitation
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.346891