UK Court Ruling Holds BHP Responsible for Brazil's Environmental Catastrophe

Fri Nov 14 2025 21:47:02 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A recent ruling by London's High Court finds BHP liable for the 2015 Mariana dam collapse, marking a significant legal development in environmental accountability and corporate liability.

The High Court in the UK has ruled that mining company BHP is liable for the disastrous 2015 dam collapse in Brazil, which resulted in 19 deaths and extensive environmental damage. The ruling also opens the door for over 600,000 affected individuals and entities to claim damages valued at up to £36 billion. BHP contests the decision, citing existing compensations paid in Brazil and plans to appeal the ruling.

The High Court in London has found mining giant BHP liable for the catastrophic dam collapse in Mariana, Brazil, which occurred in 2015 and is deemed the country's worst environmental disaster.

This tragedy claimed 19 lives and caused substantial pollution, displacing entire communities. The combined civil suit, representing over 600,000 claimants including local residents and businesses, has been estimated to value damages at £36 billion ($48 billion).

BHP announced its intent to appeal against the ruling, emphasizing that many claimants had previously received compensation in Brazil, positing that this undermines the London lawsuit.

The dam, which burst while owned by Samarco, a joint venture of BHP and Vale, was utilized to store mining waste. Its collapse released millions of cubic meters of toxic sludge into local rivers and settlements, creating immediate humanitarian and ecological crises. Judge Finola O'Farrell ruled that BHP's decision to continue operations that elevated the dam's height at unsafe levels was a primary factor leading to the collapse, thus linking BHP's liability to Brazilian law.

Despite continuing disputes over jurisdiction, claims have also surfaced against Vale, with a concurrent legal action pending in the Netherlands representing over 70,000 plaintiffs. BHP maintains that the Brazilian framework is optimal for addressing compensations related to the dam disaster.

Additionally, the case has raised concerns about the practices of Pogust Goodhead, the firm representing the claimants, which has been accused of exploiting vulnerable communities and misleading them regarding compensation agreements in Brazil. Criticism has emerged regarding the firm's contracts and alleged unsatisfactory handling of compensation claims, complicating the legal landscape.

BHP's continued emphasis on the sufficiency of Brazilian compensatory measures reveals the ongoing contention between local, national, and international efforts to seek justice and reparations in the wake of environmental catastrophes.