Judge sets date for multi

A high court judge has ruled that a £10bn lawsuit against mining giant BHP for damage caused by the collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil can go ahead in UK courts.

More than 200,000 claimants are seeking compensation for losses caused by the disaster from Anglo-Australian mining company BP.

An eight-week trial is due to take place in April 2024 following the recent High Court ruling. The High Court previously threw out the claim in November 2020, but the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment in July 2022.

The collapse of the Fundão dam in southeast Brazil on 5 November 2015 was the country's worst ever environmental disaster and released around 40M.m3 of tailings from iron ore mining. It caused a flood that killed 19 people, destroyed entire villages and had a widespread impact on numerous individuals and communities, as well as polluting 643km of the River Doce.

In 2016, a panel of investigators found that the dam failed because conditions necessary for liquefaction to occur within the dam were present prior to failure. It also concluded that lateral extrusion of slimes-rich deposits underneath sand tailings provided the mechanism to trigger the liquefaction flowslide.

The mine in the state of Minas Gerais was owned and operated by Brazilian company Samarco that is a joint venture between Vale and BHP. The claims are being brought jointly against BHP UK and BHP Australia.

The claimants are all Brazilian and include more than 200,000 individuals; 530 businesses, ranging from large companies to sole traders; 15 churches and faith-based institutions; 25 municipalities; and five utility companies. They also include members of the Krenak community who have particular community rights, and for whom the river plays a unique part in their spiritual traditions.

They claim that BHP had been negligent and are seeking compensation for losses caused by the disaster.

A high court judge has now ruled that the first eight-week trial phase will take place in April 2024.

In the judgement handed down on 21 December, Justice O’Farrell said that "it is now time to avoid further delay and make substantive progress in determining the dispute".

Lawyers from Pogust Goodhead are representing the claimants.

Pogust Goodhead barrister Alain Choo-Choy KC said in a written submission: "It is already more than four years since the proceedings were commenced and more than seven years since the collapse. There is a compelling argument that the court should set a date and estimate for the first trial of liability so as to avoid further delay."

Commenting on the ruling, Pogust Goodhead CEO and managing partner Thomas Goodhead said: "This is a transformational moment for all clients who have fought tirelessly against the largest mining company in the world.

"Having committed ecocide through their negligent conduct prior to the collapse of the dam in November 2015, BHP continues to destroy shareholder value in the way it conducts this litigation as well as prolonging the misery of hundreds of thousands of my clients."

Commenting on the hearing in December, member of the Krenak community Maykon Krenak said: "There is real joy in that fact that we have made it this far because we believe it has not been a fair fight. BHP have shown no remorse or empathy towards our community; they have caused pain, anguish and shown disregard to all, but contrary to belief we have never given up hope."

BHP denies the claims in their entirety and believes that the proceedings are unnecessary because they duplicate matters already covered by the existing and ongoing work of the Renova Foundation and legal proceedings in Brazil.

BHP and Vale set up the Renova Foundation in 2016 with Vale to carry out repair and compensation work. The foundation has disbursed more than BRL$24bn (£3.86bn) in repair and compensation programmes, including more than BRL$11bn (£1.77bn) in indemnities and financial aid to around 400,000 people.

In a statement, the company said: "BHP will continue to defend the English Proceedings, which it believes are unnecessary because they duplicate matters already covered by the existing and ongoing work of the Renova Foundation and legal proceedings in Brazil."

Want to read more? Subscribe to GE's enewsletters and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn