A multi-billion-pound lawsuit against global mining giant BHP over a dam collapse that led to Brazil’s worst environmental disaster has been postponed after a High Court judge deemed next year’s spring trial date ‘not feasible’.
The date set for a first stage trial was listed for April 2024 but will now begin in October 2024, with an estimate of 11 weeks.
In a 21-page judgment on Friday, Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE acknowledged that ‘naturally the claimants want to resolve their claims as quickly as possible’.
The Fundão dam, in Minas Gerais, Brazil, collapsed in 2015 releasing some 40 million cubic metres of tailings from iron ore mining. The collapse and flood killed 19 people, destroyed villages and had a ‘widespread impact’ on individuals and communities, the claimants say.
Toxic mining waste also swept into the River Doce, which acted as a main water supply for more than 250,000 people, and reached the Atlantic, more than 400 miles away.
Claimants in the group action, one of the largest in English history, include 200,000 individuals, 530 businesses, 15 churches and faith-based institutions, 25 municipalities, five utility companies and members of the Krenak indigenous community.
The dam was owned and operated by Samarco Mineração, a joint venture between BHP and Brazilian iron ore mining company Vale. BHP’s liabilities in the class action were estimated at £5bn in 2018.
In the Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Limited & Anor judgment, O’Farrell said: ‘The dam collapse occurred more than seven years ago and they seek compensation from those they hold responsible. As against that, it is of note that most of the claimants did not commence proceedings in this jurisdiction until 2023 and therefore are not in a position to demand an early trial.
‘It is evident from the above timetable that a first stage trial in April 2024 is not feasible. Although in theory it would be possible to fit in a pre-trial review in late April 2024 and start the first stage trial in May 2024, the suggested alternative date proposed by the claimants, it would be too tight and would not allow for any slippage. That would not be a sensible timetable to fix at this stage, given the size and complexity of the case.’
Tom Goodhead, global managing partner at Pogust Goodhead, which is representing the claimants, said: ‘BHP have written the textbook on corporate wrongdoing over the way they have handled the Mariana dam disaster and today’s significant defeat is another abysmal chapter.
‘We are extremely pleased the judge has recognised that BHP have had more than enough time to prepare and collect evidence. Over seven years on from the disaster, today’s judgment means our clients will finally have their day in court and they are now one step closer to the justice they deserve.’
In a statement, BHP said it denies the claims brought in the UK in their entirety and will continue to defend the case. It added that: 'The UK case is unnecessary as it duplicates issues already covered by the ongoing work of the Renova Foundation and the subject of ongoing legal proceedings in Brazil.'
5 Readers' comments