BHP accused of ‘avoiding’ blame for collapse of Brazil’s Mariana dam as High Court case begins

A £36billion lawsuit against BHP over Brazil’s worst environmental disaster began at the High Court in London yesterday.

More than 600,000 claimants are suing the Australian mining giant over the 2015 collapse of the Mariana dam, in one of the largest class action cases in English legal history.

Lawyers representing the claimants accused BHP, which is the world’s biggest miner, of ‘cynically’ trying to avoid responsibility for the disaster.

Flood victims: More than 600,000 claimants are suing Australian mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Mariana dam – Brazil’s worst environmental disaster

The collapse in south-eastern Brazil of the dam, which was owned by a joint venture between BHP and Brazilian company Vale, unleashed a wave of toxic mining waste that killed 19 people and left thousands homeless.

Forests were flooded, villages were destroyed, and the Doce River was polluted during the disaster. 

Law firm Pogust Goodhead is representing the claimants, which also includes 46 local governments and around 2,000 companies.

In court filings, lawyers for the claimants said that ‘there is a chasm between what BHP regards as “acceptable” and the compensation to which the claimants consider themselves legally and morally entitled’.

They argued that BHP’s actions in fighting the case and funding separate litigation in Brazil showed the miner was ‘cynically and doggedly trying to avoid’ responsibility.

BHP is contesting liability and says the London lawsuit duplicates legal proceedings and compensation programmes in Brazil. 

It argues it did not own or operate the dam, which held mining waste known as tailings. 

It said a Brazilian subsidiary of its Australian holding company was a 50 per cent shareholder in the Samarco joint venture, which operated independently.

The miner also said it had no knowledge the dam’s stability was compromised before it collapsed. 

Lawyers representing BHP said: ‘There is no law or contract which imposed any duty of safety on the ultimate parent company of a non-controlling shareholder and the other parent company in the same corporate group.

‘Nor was there any breach of such duty of safety. And nor did BHP’s acts or omissions cause the collapse.’

It has already paid out around £6billion to those affected by the disaster since 2016.

The London High Court hearing will last up to 12 weeks and will consider whether BHP is liable to the claimants under Brazilian environmental law.

DIY INVESTING PLATFORMS

Easy investing and ready-made portfolios

AJ Bell

Easy investing and ready-made portfolios

AJ Bell

Easy investing and ready-made portfolios

Free fund dealing and investment ideas

Hargreaves Lansdown

Free fund dealing and investment ideas

Hargreaves Lansdown

Free fund dealing and investment ideas

Flat-fee investing from £4.99 per month

interactive investor

Flat-fee investing from £4.99 per month

interactive investor

Flat-fee investing from £4.99 per month

Get £200 back in trading fees

Saxo

Get £200 back in trading fees

Saxo

Get £200 back in trading fees

Free dealing and no account fee

Trading 212

Free dealing and no account fee

Trading 212

Free dealing and no account fee

Affiliate links: If you take out a product This is Money may earn a commission. These deals are chosen by our editorial team, as we think they are worth highlighting. This does not affect our editorial independence.

Compare the best investing account for you



***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk