The London Court of Appeal took a 180-degree turn by agreeing to reopen a 5 billion pound ($ 9.4 billion) lawsuit brought by 200,000 plaintiffs against Anglo-Australian mining giant BHP, reviving a case involving the rupture of a dam behind the Brazil's worst environmental disaster.
Key points:
-
The 2015 collapse of a dam jointly owned by BHP and Vale resulted in a torrent of mining waste that washed away villages and killed 19 people.
-
The lawsuit is the latest battle to establish whether multinationals can be held liable for the conduct of foreign subsidiaries in their own territory.
-
The appeal is likely to be heard next year
Lawyers for one of the largest class action claims in English legal history have been pushing to resuscitate the lawsuit against BHP since a lower court dismissed it as an abuse of process last year, and a Court of Appeal judge upheld that. decision in March.
But in a highly unusual move, three judges on the Court of Appeals changed course and granted permission to appeal, saying they believed he had a "real prospect of success."
The 2015 collapse of the Fundao dam, owned by the Samarco company between BHP and the Brazilian iron mining giant Vale, killed 19 people and razed villages as a torrent of more than 40 million cubic meters of mining waste was washed away. towards the Rio Doce and the Atlantic. Ocean more than 650 kilometers away.
AFP: Yasuyoshi Chiba
)
Tom Goodhead, managing partner of the PGMBM law firm that is filing the claim on behalf of individuals, businesses, churches, organizations, municipalities and Brazilian indigenous peoples, called it a "monumental judgment."
Frederico de Assis Faria, attorney general for the Mariana district, the hardest hit in Brazil, said victims now have "a chance for real justice" six years after the disaster.
BHP, the world's largest mining company by market value, has called the case useless and wasteful, saying it duplicates procedures in Brazil and the work of the Renova Foundation, an entity created by the company and its Brazilian partners to manage repairs and repairs.
"BHP's position remains that the proceedings do not belong to the UK," it said in a statement.
'Good day for justice'
The case was revived after PGMBM in April requested an oral hearing in the Court of Appeals, reserved for exceptional cases only, and argued that the appellate judge had not adequately dealt with arguments as to why the case should continue.
Martyn Day, a lawyer for the Leigh Day firm who has confronted mining company Vedanta and oil giant Shell in English courts on behalf of the villagers over the alleged contamination in Zambia and the oil spills in the Niger Delta, respectively, welcomed the ruling.
"It is very unusual for the Court of Appeal to use this mechanism [of an oral hearing] for reviewing a decision of a fellow court, "he said.
"A good day for justice."
Claimant's lawyers have argued that the majority of its clients have not instituted proceedings in Brazil, that they have the right to sue BHP in England, and that the Brazilian litigation is so long that it cannot provide full redress in a realistic time frame.
The lawsuit is the latest battle to establish whether multinationals can be held liable for the conduct of foreign subsidiaries in their own territory.
The appeal is expected to be heard next year and any ruling is likely to be appealed again to the High Court in London.
Reuters
