In brief
In a critical High Court ruling, BHP has been found liable for the catastrophic 2015 dam collapse in Brazil's Mariana region, resulting in Brazil's worst environmental disaster. The court stated that the increase in the dam's height without ensuring safety was the main cause of its collapse, which led to 19 deaths and environmental devastation affecting hundreds of thousands. BHP plans to appeal the decision, citing prior compensations made to many claimants.
In a significant ruling, mining company BHP was held liable for the catastrophic dam collapse that occurred in Brazil in 2015, which has since been labeled as the country’s worst environmental disaster. The High Court in London determined that BHP's actions directly contributed to the disaster, which resulted in the fatalities of 19 individuals and the destruction of hundreds of homes.
The civil lawsuit represents over 600,000 individuals, local governments, and businesses affected by the disaster, with damages claimed amounting to as much as £36 billion ($48 billion). In response to the ruling, BHP announced plans to appeal, arguing that many claimants had already received compensation through processes in Brazil.
The dam, located in Mariana, Brazil, was owned by Samarco, a joint venture involving BHP and Vale. During the lawsuit, representatives argued that BHP's headquarters in the UK warranted the case being held there. Another claim against Vale is pending in the Netherlands, involving more than 70,000 plaintiffs.
Judge Finola O’Farrell concluded that the decision to heighten the dam despite safety concerns directly caused its failure. BHP now faces a battle as it seeks to challenge the ruling and reduce its liability claims.
The disaster released tens of millions of cubic meters of toxic waste into local communities, leading to widespread pollution of the river and surrounding areas. Victims have criticized BHP for not adequately addressing the damages, and BHP must now confront the implications of the court's decision.
Ongoing legal disputes have created fractures between BHP and the law firms representing claimants, including allegations of misleading practices and exploitation of vulnerable victims of the disaster.
