A new era for claims in the UK - British mining giant BHP found liable in English court for failings abroad, in 36 billion GBP claim

In a landmark ruling handed down this morning (14 November), the High Court has found BHP Group (UK) Limited (BHP) liable for the Fundão Dam collapse on 5 November 2015. The claim is valued at £36 billion.

The case, Municipio De Mariana and others -v- BHP Group (UK) Limited and others [2025] EWHC 3001 (TCC), is one of the largest civil claims ever brought in England and Wales. It involves over 620,000 claimants, and has significance for cross-border litigation concerning overseas operations.

Background

On 5 November 2015, the Fundão Dam in Mariana, Brazil, collapsed, releasing around 45 million cubic metres of mining waste into the River Doce. It resulted in catastrophic flooding, killing 19 people, devastating two nearby villages and causing massive pollution to water sources. It was declared one of the worst environmental disasters in Brazilian history.

The dam was operated by Samarco Mineração S.A. (Samarco), a joint venture between BHP and the Brazilian mining company Vale S.A. (Vale).

The claim was issued in England because at the time of the disaster, BHP was listed on the London Stock Exchange. It was common ground between the parties that Brazilian law applied.

Throughout the proceedings, BHP denied all claims, arguing it was neither a direct nor indirect polluter and therefore was not liable for the environmental disaster.

Aside from liability under Brazilian law, a key issue for the English court to determine was standing. BHP claimed that the claimants did not have the capacity or standing to bring proceedings in England and Wales.

The judgment

The Fundão Dam collapsed due to structural defects. Crucially, the collapse was foreseeable, and proper stability analysis would have revealed inadequate safety margins.

BHP was liable on two key grounds under Brazilian law:

1. Strict Liability under the Environmental Law (Law 6.938/1981): Under Articles 3(IV) and 14, BHP were found strictly liable as "polluters" in respect of the damage caused by the collapse due to their ownership and control of Samarco, and due to their participation and benefit from activities which led to the damage.

2. Fault-based Liability under the Civil Code (Law 10.406/2002): Under Article 186, BHP was liable because their (a) negligent omissions and unlawful conduct, including disregarding warnings and failing to address known risks (b) resulted in extensive environmental and economic devastation and (c) there was a causal link between the omissions and collapse.

BHP was not liable under Articles 116 and 117 of the Brazilian Corporate Law (Law 6.404/1976), as those provisions do not create a duty owed directly to third parties.

Significantly, the court confirmed that the claimants had capacity and standing to bring these proceedings.

Next steps

BHP has announced its intention to appeal, arguing the UK proceedings duplicate compensation efforts, including the $32 billion (R$170 billion) settlement agreed between Samarco, BHP, Vale and the Brazilian authorities in October 2024. You can read BHP's statement here.

Moreover, this ruling addresses liability only. A second phase, scheduled to begin in October 2026 will involve an assessment of damages. Following any appeals or decision, a third stage may require each claimant to prove individual losses before BHP is required to pay compensation. As a result, the case may not conclude until 2028 or 2029.

Key takeaways

The ruling has significant implications for global corporations and cross-border litigation.

1. Jurisdictional reach

Perhaps the most notable feature of the ruling is that it has been delivered by an English court. The ruling confirms the willingness of the English courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign disasters when there is a sufficient UK nexus, such as a listed entity or corporate presence. This could lead to more claimants seeking foreign law remedies in the English courts, and particularly opens the door to increased class actions in England and Wales.

2. Coordinated litigation

The English proceedings are just one part of the compensation efforts being pursued by the claimants. The case is an interesting illustration of the impact that coordinated litigation efforts can have. We await the result of any appeal brought by BHP on the basis that the English proceedings are duplicative in nature.

3. ESG and governance risks

The case is another timely reminder that global companies should reassess risk management and oversight of joint ventures, particularly in high-risk sectors including mining and energy.

In recent years, increasing environmental legislation has emerged globally. Failure to implement robust environmental safeguards that results in environmental damage could expose companies to litigation in multiple jurisdictions, including in the English courts.

Overall, this ruling sets an important precedent for claims concerning cross-border operations, particularly those brought as a class action. We will continue to monitor the progression of future second and third phases, as well as any appeal brought by BHP.

Many thanks to Jessica Harker, current trainee in the team, for her help in preparing this article.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, November 2025