Muncipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc

Muncipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc

The Defendants demonstrated that, despite proper efforts and use of technology, the preparation of reply evidence would take significantly longer due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions. Justice required granting an extension of five to six weeks, even though this would vacate the June hearing. However, further delay to the Michaelmas term was not justified; the hearing could be fairly conducted remotely in July, and the detriment to the Defendants from remote participation was modest.

Parties
Claimant: Municipio de Mariana & Others; Defendant: BHP Group PLC (formerly BHP Billiton); Defendant: BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda; Defendant: Samarco Mineração SA; Defendant: BHP International Finance Corp; Defendant: BHP Minerals International LLC; Defendant: Marcona Intl, SA; Defendant: BHP Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Class Action / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time and Adjournment of Hearing
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; June hearing vacated; hearing relisted for July 2020 to be conducted remotely if necessary.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Adjournment, Remote Hearings, Forum Non Conveniens, Abuse of Process, Case Management, COVID 19 Impact on Litigation
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Class Actions Extension of Time Adjournment Remote Hearings Forum Non Conveniens Abuse of Process +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Municipio de Mariana & Others

Claimant

BHP Group PLC (formerly BHP Billiton)

Defendant

BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda

Defendant

Samarco Mineração SA

Defendant

BHP International Finance Corp

Defendant

BHP Minerals International LLC

Defendant

Marcona Intl, SA

Defendant

BHP Group Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Class Action / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time and Adjournment of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time for Defendants to serve reply evidence due to COVID-19 pandemic
  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 preparation of reply evidence would take significantly longer due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions. Justice required granting an extension of five to six weeks, even though this would vacate the June hearing. However, further delay to the Michaelmas term was not justified; the hearing could be fairly conducted remotely in July, and the detriment to the Defendants from remote participation was modest.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; June hearing vacated; hearing relisted for July 2020 to be conducted remotely if necessary.

Orders

  • Extension of time for Defendants to serve reply evidence to a date in the week commencing 8th June 2020 (precise date to be determined).
  • Jurisdiction challenge hearing vacated from June and relisted for 20th July 2020 with an eight-day estimate and pre-reading from 14th July 2020.