A UK high court has ruled that mining giant BHP Group is liable for a 2015 dam collapse in Brazil, which is considered the country’s worst environmental disaster, opening the door for billions in compensation. The ruling by Judge Finola O’Farrell at London’s High Court found that BHP’s actions directly caused the collapse of the Fundão dam in Mariana, southeastern Brazil, on November 5, 2015. The judge stated that continuing to raise the height of the dam when it was unsafe was the immediate cause, making BHP responsible under Brazilian law, a decision that could set a precedent for holding multinational corporations accountable for overseas operations.
The dam collapse unleashed tens of millions of cubic meters of toxic mining waste into the Doce River, killing 19 people, destroying hundreds of homes, and devastating local communities. The sludge swept through villages like Bento Rodrigues, leaving thousands homeless and polluting over 600 kilometers of the river, which has yet to recover fully. Studies indicate the disaster killed 14 tonnes of freshwater fish and flooded forests, with the Krenak Indigenous people, who revere the river as a deity, among the most affected. The environmental damage is likened to filling 13,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools with waste, highlighting the scale of the catastrophe.
The lawsuit, representing more than 600,000 claimants including civilians, local governments, and businesses, was valued at up to £36 billion ($48 billion). It was filed in the UK because BHP had a legal entity based in London at the time, arguing that the company’s headquarters were in the UK when the dam collapsed. A separate claim against Samarco’s other parent company, Brazilian mining giant Vale, was filed in the Netherlands, involving over 70,000 plaintiffs. The legal action underscores efforts to seek justice for victims who argue that local compensation programs have been insufficient or unfairly administered.
BHP, which owns 50% of Samarco—the joint venture with Vale that operated the dam—has stated it will appeal the ruling. The company argues that many claimants have already been compensated through programs in Brazil and that the UK case duplicates existing legal proceedings. BHP’s President of Minerals Americas, Brandon Craig, noted that 240,000 claimants in the London lawsuit had received payments in Brazil, potentially reducing the value of the UK claims. However, the claimants’ law firm, Pogust Goodhead, disputes this, alleging that settlements were pressured and undervalued.
Compensation efforts in Brazil include the Renova Foundation, established by BHP and Vale, which has disbursed billions in repairs and offered new housing or cash to victims. In October 2024, Brazil’s federal government reached a $23 billion settlement with the mining companies over 20 years to address human, environmental, and infrastructure damage. Despite this, Pogust Goodhead claims that the foundation’s actions have hindered fair compensation, leading to disputes over legal fees and allegations of misleading contracts with vulnerable Brazilians. BHP has rejected these claims, vowing to contest them vigorously.
The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between international legal actions and local resolutions, with implications for corporate responsibility worldwide. It signals that companies can be held liable for environmental disasters abroad, potentially influencing future cases involving multinational operations. As BHP prepares its appeal, the outcome may shape how similar incidents are handled, emphasizing the need for stronger safety standards and accountability in the mining industry. The disaster’s legacy continues to affect communities and ecosystems, underscoring the long-term challenges of environmental recovery and justice.
Looking ahead, the case could prompt reforms in global corporate governance and environmental regulations. The precedent set by the UK court may empower other victims of corporate negligence to seek justice in international forums, balancing local and global approaches to compensation. With the appeal pending, the focus remains on ensuring that affected communities receive adequate redress and that such tragedies are prevented through improved industry practices and oversight.
