Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor.

Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor.

The Court of Appeal held that the claims were not clearly and obviously abusive, unmanageable, or pointless, and that the claimants had a realistic prospect of obtaining tangible advantage in England. The risk of irreconcilable judgments with Brazilian proceedings was insufficient to justify a stay under Article 34, and forum non conveniens arguments did not warrant a stay against BHP Australia. The appeal was allowed and all applications for strike out or stay were dismissed.

Parties
Claimants/appellants: Município de Mariana and the Claimants identified in the Schedules to the Claim Forms; Defendant/respondent: BHP Group (UK) Ltd (formerly BHP Group PLC); Defendant/respondent: BHP Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; applications for strike out or stay dismissed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Forum Non Conveniens, Lis Pendens, Group Litigation, Jurisdiction, Comparative Law, Compensation for Environmental Damage
Tort Environmental Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Abuse of Process Forum Non Conveniens Lis Pendens 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Município de Mariana and the Claimants identified in the Schedules to the Claim Forms

Claimants/appellants

BHP Group (UK) Ltd (formerly BHP Group PLC)

Defendant/respondent

BHP Group Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims should be struck out or stayed as abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether claims should be stayed under Article 34 of Brussels Recast due to related proceedings in Brazil
  3. 3 Whether claims against BHP Australia should be stayed on forum non conveniens grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claims were not clearly and obviously abusive, unmanageable, or pointless, and that the claimants had a realistic prospect of obtaining tangible advantage in England. The risk of irreconcilable judgments with Brazilian proceedings was insufficient to justify a stay under Article 34, and forum non conveniens arguments did not warrant a stay against BHP Australia. The appeal was allowed and all applications for strike out or stay were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; applications for strike out or stay dismissed.

Orders

  • Claims reinstated and permitted to proceed in England.
  • No stay under Article 34 Brussels Recast.