c. Continuing nuisance and fresh causes of action

c. Continuing nuisance and fresh causes of action 

Water seepage may amount to a continuing nuisance if the seepage continues to interfere with the use and enjoyment of a flat or other premises. In such a case, the nuisance is not treated as having occurred only once on the day when the seepage first began. Instead, so long as the water continues to seep, the law may treat the nuisance as continuing from day to day. 

This is important because each continuation or repetition of the nuisance may give rise to a fresh cause of action. In practical terms, if water is still actively seeping into a flat, the affected owner or occupier may still have a right to bring legal proceedings in respect of the continuing interference, even if the seepage first started some years ago. 

However, this does not mean that the plaintiff can recover compensation for all losses going back indefinitely. The law of limitation still applies. For most tort claims, including nuisance, the ordinary limitation period is 6 years. Therefore, even where the nuisance is continuing, the plaintiff will usually only be able to recover compensation for the part of the nuisance and the loss suffered within the relevant limitation period before the commencement of the legal action. Damage or loss which occurred more than 6 years before the claim was brought may be time-barred. 

For example, if water seepage caused damage to a ceiling 8 years ago, but the owner only starts legal proceedings now, the claim for that old damage may be out of time. But if the seepage is still continuing, or if fresh damage has occurred within the last 6 years, the plaintiff may still be able to sue for the ongoing nuisance and the more recent loss. 

It is also important to distinguish between a single past breach and a new or repeated breach of duty. If the defendant committed one wrongful act more than 6 years ago and the damage flowed from that act, the claim for that original damage may be barred by limitation. But if there is a later and separate failure to act, a new cause of action may arise. 

For instance, if the person responsible for the seepage receives a new complaint, or is served with a Nuisance Notice by the Joint Office, and then fails to take reasonable steps to investigate or repair the problem within a reasonable time, that later failure may itself amount to a fresh breach of duty. In that situation, the affected owner may be able to bring a claim based on the new breach, even though the original seepage began more than 6 years ago. 

In short, a continuing water seepage problem may keep giving rise to fresh legal rights, but it does not automatically revive claims for old losses which are already outside the limitation period. Whether a claim is time-barred will depend on the facts, including when the seepage occurred, when the damage was suffered, whether the nuisance continued, and whether there were any fresh breaches of duty.