In brief
The High Court in London determined that BHP, a mining company, is liable for the catastrophic 2015 dam collapse in Brazil, which resulted in the deaths of 19 individuals and significant environmental damage. The civil lawsuit, representing over 600,000 claimants, seeks £36bn in damages. BHP plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that many claimants have already received compensation in Brazil.
Mining company BHP has been found liable for a 2015 dam collapse in Brazil, known as the country's worst-ever environmental disaster, by London's High Court.
The dam collapse killed 19 people, polluted the river and destroyed hundreds of homes.
The civil lawsuit, representing more than 600,000 people including civilians, local governments and businesses, had been valued at up to £36bn ($48bn).
BHP said it would appeal against the ruling and continue to fight the lawsuit, asserting that many claimants in the London lawsuit had already been compensated in Brazil.
The dam in Mariana, southeastern Brazil, was owned by Samarco, a joint venture between Vale and BHP.
The claimants' legal team argued successfully to hold the trial in London, based on the premise that BHP's headquarters were located in the UK at the time of the incident.
A separate claim against Samarco's other parent company, Vale, was filed in the Netherlands with over 70,000 plaintiffs.
The dam stored waste from iron ore mining. Its collapse unleashed millions of cubic meters of toxic waste, devastating surrounding communities and poisoning local rivers.
Judge Finola O'Farrell attributed the dam's failure to the unsafe elevation increments made even after it exhibited structural instability.
BHP's President for Minerals Americas, Brandon Craig, stated that 240,000 claimants in the London lawsuit had already benefited from compensation in Brazil.
The situation has sparked clashes between BHP and Pogust Goodhead, the UK firm representing the claimants, over claims of duplicative legal proceedings and forced settlements.
Moreover, Pogust Goodhead has faced accusations of exploiting vulnerable Brazilian victims, which it has decisively denied. A Brazilian judge criticized the firm for allegedly 'misleading' affected individuals.
