Publication
Horizon Scanning: Investigations and Enforcement
In this horizon scan, we focus on key developments affecting companies operating in the UK, including in light of the recent change in UK government.
In Texas, Pennsylvania, and other areas with significant oil and gas activity, nuisance law has long been an amorphous, catch-all cause of action, cloaked in “mystery” and at times even referred to as “a sort of legal garbage can.”
Energy companies increasingly have been the target of nuisance suits alleging that drilling operations were a nuisance to nearby residents, leaving some companies exposed to millions of dollars in damages for property damage, including “loss of use and enjoyment” of the property and even more-difficult-to-quantify damages for annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort.
On June 24, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court attempted to clarify private nuisance law in Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. n/k/a Enlink North Texas Pipeline LP v. Gardiner. Importantly, the Court in Crosstex held that private nuisance is neither a cause of action nor a description of a defendant’s conduct; rather, it is a legal injury related to the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of property.
Additionally, the court clarified that:
But while Crosstex is perhaps the Texas Supreme Court’s most comprehensive discussion of private nuisance to date, it does not answer every question—nor could it—and it is not binding on courts outside of the state.
Among other open issues, the level of tortious conduct required of defendants (e.g., whether strict liability nuisance is available), the degree of causation evidence required, and the availability of damages for “annoyance and discomfiture” in certain jurisdictions all remain unclear.
Download the Whitepaper: Nuisance cases against energy companies in Texas Pennsylvania and other areas with significant or developing oil and gas exploration
Publication
In this horizon scan, we focus on key developments affecting companies operating in the UK, including in light of the recent change in UK government.
Publication
As we discussed in our recent article, 2024 was expected to be a make or break year for the global hydrogen industry.
Publication
On 3 September 2024, the ECJ delivered its judgment in Illumina’s appeal against the General Court’s (GC) judgment confirming the European Commission’s (EC) powers to review concentrations under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) in circumstances where no Member State has jurisdiction under national law.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023