Summary
In a judgment handed down on 14 November 2025, the English High Court has found the Anglo-Australian mining giant BHP liable for the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Minas Gerais, Brazil1. The claim, brought by over 600,000 Brazilian individuals, companies and municipalities, with approximately £36 billion sought, represents one of the largest group actions ever heard in England, and one of the most significant judgments relating to overseas environmental damage to date.
The judgment is subject to appeal, and a further hearing is currently listed for October 2026 to determine the quantum of damages payable by BHP.
The case raises several issues frequently contested in cross-border collective claims, including:
The degree of parent company involvement necessary for liability
The application of foreign law through expert evidence
Limitation periods affected by criminal investigations abroad
The impact of foreign settlement schemes on English proceedings
This decision does not alter English law on parent company responsibility, as the matter was determined under Brazilian law principles. However, it forms part of a growing body of cross-border litigation that demonstrates the willingness and ability of the English Court to hear complex environmental claims against UK-based multinationals arising from alleged harm abroad.
Its implications extend to UK-headquartered multinationals operating abroad, particularly in sectors where environmental risk is high. In future cases involving severe environmental damage and/or personal injuries, parent-subsidiary governance structures will continue to be closely scrutinised. It reinforces the need for UK-based businesses to review their approach to the oversight of, and policies applicable to their overseas operations, factoring in the litigation risks highlighted by this case, and to adopt a coordinated approach to cross-jurisdiction litigation exposure.
Background
The Fundão dam formed part of the Germano iron ore mining complex in Brazil, which was owned and operated by Samarco SA (Samarco), a Brazilian joint venture company in which the shareholding was 50% owned by Vale SA (Vale), another Brazilian company and 50% owned by various entities within the BHP Group, the Anglo/Australian mining giant. The dam collapsed in November 2015, causing significant loss of life, injury and environmental damage.
Although Samarco carried out day-to-day operations, the claimants contended that BHP’s involvement in strategic decision-making rendered it liable under the relevant Brazilian law principles.
This judgment (which is being appealed) concludes the first,12-week phase of a two-stage trial. The quantum stage is currently listed from October 2026, although this may be impacted by the progress of and findings from the appeal.
Earlier decisions established that:
The English Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim
The proceedings would be divided into liability and quantum phases
Brazilian law applied, as agreed by the parties
Vale could be joined by BHP as an additional defendant to the action on the basis of its involvement in Samarco, although subsequently BHP and Vale agreed that Vale could step out of the action on terms whereby it would be liable for 50% of any liability found against BHP
Extensive expert evidence was required to guide the English Court on Brazilian environmental and civil-liability principles.
Liability Findings
Strict Environmental Liability
The court held that BHP qualified as a “polluter” under Brazilian environmental law due to its degree of involvement in Samarco’s activities. On that basis, it was strictly liable for the environmental and socio-economic damage, as well as personal injuries stemming from the collapse.
Fault-based Liability
The court also found BHP liable on a fault-based basis analogous to the concept of negligence under English law. It held that BHP assumed a duty under Brazilian law to avoid harm arising from negligent or imprudent acts or omissions, and that its conduct had fallen below the required standard in a way that contributed to the collapse.
Limitation and Settlement Issues
The claims were not time-barred, in part because the limitation period was suspended by Brazilian criminal proceedings. Issues relating to the effect of Brazilian settlement agreements were addressed at a high level, with claimant-specific analysis deferred to the quantum phase.
Relationship with Earlier Authority
While determined under Brazilian law, the decision sits alongside significant English authority on the liability of parent companies for overseas operations:
Vedanta v Lungowe2 established that parent companies may owe duties of care where they exercise real control over a subsidiary’s operations
Okpabi v Shell3 reinforced that such issues are deeply fact-sensitive and not amenable to early strike-out
Jalla v Shell4 demonstrated the English Court’s willingness to oversee mass environmental claims linked to foreign events
Together with these cases, the present judgment reflects a clear judicial readiness to handle complex transnational claims involving environmental harm.
Takeaways
As this judgment turned on Brazilian law, it does not alter existing English law on parent company responsibility. Further, the judgment is being appealed, so the legal position may evolve. However, there are some key points to note:
The English Court emphasised the broad approach taken under Brazilian environmental legislation, including strict liability for “polluters”. While each claim will turn on its own facts, this judgment (if it stands after any appeal) will certainly be relevant to future claims relating to environmental damage in that jurisdiction (as well as potentially in other jurisdictions which apply similar principles).
The reasoning is broadly consistent with English case law, which indicates that greater parent company involvement increases the likelihood of liability.
The case illustrates the English Court’s capability to manage large, multi-party disputes involving complex foreign-law questions.
The existence of local proceedings and compensation schemes was not relevant for this phase of the case but will be central if the case reaches the quantum hearing, and will likely inform the approach to such schemes in similar situations.
Comment
This is one of the most significant judgments in relation to overseas environmental damage issued by the English Court to date. While grounded entirely in Brazilian law, its implications extend to UK-headquartered multinationals operating abroad, particularly in sectors where environmental risk is high. In future cases involving severe environmental damage and/or personal injuries, parent-subsidiary governance structures will continue to be closely scrutinised.
The decision underscores the importance of:
Clear oversight frameworks
Risk management processes for high-impact operations
A coordinated approach to litigation exposure across jurisdictions
With further proceedings anticipated at the quantum stage, and a likely appeal, the case will remain a key reference point in the developing landscape of ESG and environment- related cross-border litigation.
1 Municipio de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & BHP Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 3001 (TCC)
2 Vedanta Resources Plc v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20, [2020] AC 1045.
3 Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc [2021] UKSC 3, [2021] 1 WLR 1294.
4 Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd [2023] UKSC 16, [2024] AC 595.
