Catarina Oliveira da Silva & Ors v Brazil Iron Limited & Anor

Catarina Oliveira da Silva & Ors v Brazil Iron Limited & Anor

Although Brazil has the most real and substantial connection to the claims, there is a real risk that claimants will not be able to obtain substantial justice there due to the economics of litigation, limited funding options, and the absence of viable CFA or legal aid arrangements for lawyers' fees; undertakings by defendants do not remedy this risk. Therefore, the English court should retain jurisdiction and refuse a stay.

Parties
Claimants: Catarina Oliveira Da Silva and others; Defendants: Brazil Iron Limited and another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Stay Application
Outcome
Defendants' application for stay and declaration of non-jurisdiction dismissed
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Access to Justice, Group Litigation, Environmental Torts, Funding of Litigation
Private International Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Forum Non Conveniens Access to Justice Group Litigation Environmental Torts Funding of 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catarina Oliveira Da Silva and others

Claimants

Brazil Iron Limited and another

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England or Brazil is the appropriate forum for trial of environmental claims against English-domiciled companies
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk that claimants will not obtain substantial justice in Brazil due to funding and representation issues
  3. 3 Whether undertakings by defendants can remedy access to justice concerns

Ratio Decidendi

Although Brazil has the most real and substantial connection to the claims, there is a real risk that claimants will not be able to obtain substantial justice there due to the economics of litigation, limited funding options, and the absence of viable CFA or legal aid arrangements for lawyers' fees; undertakings by defendants do not remedy this risk. Therefore, the English court should retain jurisdiction and refuse a stay.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for stay and declaration of non-jurisdiction dismissed

Orders

  • English court retains jurisdiction over the claims
  • Defendants' undertakings noted but not relied upon as solution to access to justice