Muncipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc [2020] EWHC 928 (TCC) (20 April 2020)

Muncipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc [2020] EWHC 928 (TCC) (20 April 2020)

The Defendants demonstrated that, despite proper efforts and use of technology, the scale and complexity of the reply evidence, combined with the realities of remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic, made compliance with the existing timetable impracticable. Justice required granting a five to six week extension, even though this necessitated vacating the June hearing. However, further delay to the Autumn was not justified, as a remote hearing in July would be fair and proportionate given the nature of the issues and absence of live evidence.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 928 (TCC)
Parties
Claimants: MUNICIPIO DE MARIANA & OTHERS; Defendants: BHP GROUP PLC (formerly BHP BILLITON)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Adjournment (interlocutory) in Civil Proceedings / Pre Trial, Directions Regarding Evidence and Hearing Timetable
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Adjournment of Hearing, Remote Hearings, Jurisdiction Challenge, COVID 19 Impact on Litigation
Civil Procedure Private International Law Extension of Time Adjournment of Hearing Remote Hearings Jurisdiction Challenge COVID 19 Impact on Litigation

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MUNICIPIO DE MARIANA & OTHERS

Claimants

BHP GROUP PLC (formerly BHP BILLITON)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Adjournment (interlocutory) in Civil Proceedings / Pre Trial, Directions Regarding Evidence and Hearing Timetable

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time for service of Defendants' reply evidence due to COVID-19 disruptions
  2. 2 Whether to vacate and relist the jurisdiction challenge hearing
  3. 3 Whether the hearing should be conducted remotely or in person

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants demonstrated that, despite proper efforts and use of technology, the scale and complexity of the reply evidence, combined with the realities of remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic, made compliance with the existing timetable impracticable. Justice required granting a five to six week extension, even though this necessitated vacating the June hearing. However, further delay to the Autumn was not justified, as a remote hearing in July would be fair and proportionate given the nature of the issues and absence of live evidence.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Extension of time for Defendants' reply evidence to a date in the week commencing 8 June 2020 (precise date to be determined)
  • Vacation of the June hearing date