The Judiciary has published a Court of Appeal judgment in the long-running Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group litigation. The case arises from the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Brazil, one of the worst environmental disasters in the country’s history.
Over 200,000 Brazilian claimants are pursuing claims against BHP in the English courts. The litigation has already generated multiple hearings in the Technology and Construction Court and the Court of Appeal.
Background to the litigation
The Fundão dam was owned and operated by Samarco, a joint venture between Vale and BHP Brasil. BHP Brasil is a subsidiary of BHP’s English and Australian parent companies. When the dam collapsed in November 2015, it released millions of cubic metres of mining waste, devastating communities across the states of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo.
The claimants initially had their claims struck out by the High Court in 2020 as an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision in 2022, and the Supreme Court refused BHP permission to appeal in June 2023. The case has since progressed through a stage 1 trial in the TCC.
Issues in the latest appeal
The latest appeal addresses several procedural and jurisdictional issues, including questions of standing under Brazilian law and BHP’s attempt to prevent certain Brazilian municipalities from pursuing claims in the English courts. The judgment also considers contempt of court issues arising from proceedings brought by IBRAM (a Brazilian mining industry body) in the Brazilian courts.
Why It Matters
This is a significant case for group litigation, commercial disputes, environmental claims and TCC practitioners. It raises important questions about the management of large-scale international litigation in the English courts, the interaction between English and foreign proceedings, and the scope of contempt jurisdiction.
The regulatory landscape
Vos addressed the regulatory position, noting that Article 14 of the EU’s AI Act classifies justice systems as high-risk, requiring human oversight. Article 22 of the GDPR restricts automated decisions affecting legal rights. He also raised the question of whether a machine could ever meet the standard of an independent or impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the ECHR.
He suggested these provisions will be worked out over time and may themselves be subject to amendment as the debate matures.
What this means for practitioners
The speech reinforces the expectation that lawyers will need to engage with AI tools responsibly. Vos has previously suggested that failing to use AI where it offers clear advantages could raise competence questions.