Municipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1156 (27 July 2021)

Municipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1156 (27 July 2021)

The Court of Appeal held that the appellate judge did not fail to grapple with the essential points raised by the claimants in their application for permission to appeal. The refusal of permission was not critically undermined, and the high threshold for re-opening under CPR 52.30 was not met. The claims were properly struck out as an abuse of process due to their irredeemable unmanageability and the existence of parallel proceedings in Brazil. There was no real injustice or exceptional circumstance warranting re-opening the refusal of permission to appeal.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1156
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Municipio de Mariana and others; Defendant/respondent: BHP Group PLC (formerly BHP Billiton PLC); Defendant/respondent: BHP Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Appeal; Application to Re Open Refusal Under CPR 52.30
Outcome
Application to re-open refusal of permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Group Litigation, Access to Justice, Case Management, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure Tort Law Environmental Law Private International Law Abuse of Process Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Group Litigation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Municipio de Mariana and others

Claimants/appellants

BHP Group PLC (formerly BHP Billiton PLC)

Defendant/respondent

BHP Group Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Appeal; Application to Re Open Refusal Under CPR 52.30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of permission to appeal by the appellate judge should be re-opened under CPR 52.30
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in striking out the claims as an abuse of process on grounds of 'irredeemable unmanageability'
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly conflated abuse of process with jurisdictional principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the appellate judge did not fail to grapple with the essential points raised by the claimants in their application for permission to appeal. The refusal of permission was not critically undermined, and the high threshold for re-opening under CPR 52.30 was not met. The claims were properly struck out as an abuse of process due to their irredeemable unmanageability and the existence of parallel proceedings in Brazil. There was no real injustice or exceptional circumstance warranting re-opening the refusal of permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open refusal of permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to appeal stands
  • No re-opening of the appellate judge's refusal under CPR 52.30