Municípo de Mariana v BHP Group PLC & Anor.

Municípo de Mariana v BHP Group PLC & Anor.

The claims constitute an abuse of process because they seek to run closely related group actions in parallel in England and Brazil, with many claimants pursuing identical remedies in both jurisdictions, creating an acute risk of irreconcilable judgments, procedural chaos, and unmanageable litigation. The English court's resources would be disproportionately burdened, and the claimants have no compelling reason to sue the defendants in England rather than Brazil, where redress is available. The only proper procedural consequence is to strike out the claims.

Parties
Claimant: Município de Mariana and the Claimants identified in the Schedules to the Claim Forms; First Defendant: BHP Group Plc (formerly BHP Billiton PLC); Seventh Defendant: BHP Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Group Action (damages Claim) / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out/stay Applications
Outcome
claims struck out as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Forum Non Conveniens, Case Management Stay, Recast Brussels Regulation Article 34, Group Litigation, Cross Border Environmental Harm
Civil Procedure Private International Law Environmental Law Tort Law Abuse of Process Forum Non Conveniens Case Management Stay Recast Brussels Regulation Article 34 +2 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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Claimant

BHP Group Plc (formerly BHP Billiton PLC)

First Defendant

BHP Group Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Action (damages Claim) / Interlocutory Judgment on Strike Out/stay Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims should be struck out or stayed as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claims against BHP Plc should be stayed under Article 34 of the Recast Brussels Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the claims against BHP Ltd should be stayed on forum non conveniens grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The claims constitute an abuse of process because they seek to run closely related group actions in parallel in England and Brazil, with many claimants pursuing identical remedies in both jurisdictions, creating an acute risk of irreconcilable judgments, procedural chaos, and unmanageable litigation. The English court's resources would be disproportionately burdened, and the claimants have no compelling reason to sue the defendants in England rather than Brazil, where redress is available. The only proper procedural consequence is to strike out the claims.

Court Disposition

claims struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • All claims against both defendants are struck out.
  • If strike out is not upheld, claims would be stayed pending resolution of Brazilian proceedings.