BHP Held Liable for 2015 Brazil Dam Collapse by London High Court

In a landmark decision, London’s High Court has held mining giant BHP liable for the catastrophic 2015 dam collapse in Mariana, Brazil—considered the country’s worst environmental disaster. The collapse claimed 19 lives, destroyed hundreds of homes, and polluted the Doce River, leaving lasting environmental and social impacts.

The civil lawsuit, representing over 600,000 claimants including local residents, businesses, and government entities, was initially valued at up to £36 billion ($48 billion). The High Court ruling marks a significant step in holding multinational corporations accountable for overseas disasters.

The Mariana dam was operated by Samarco, a joint venture between BHP and Brazilian mining firm Vale. Judge Finola O’Farrell concluded that BHP’s decision to continue raising the height of the dam despite known safety risks was the “direct and immediate cause” of the collapse. This finding renders BHP liable under Brazilian law, even though many claimants had already received compensation in Brazil.

BHP stated it plans to appeal the ruling. Brandon Craig, President of BHP Minerals Americas, said that approximately 240,000 claimants in the London lawsuit had already been compensated in Brazil, which he believes will “significantly reduce the size and value of claims in the UK group action.”

The lawsuit in London has been fraught with disputes, including allegations by claimants’ lawyers Pogust Goodhead that BHP and Vale pressured victims to settle claims at reduced values. BHP has consistently denied liability, arguing that the London proceedings duplicate legal and reparatory measures already carried out in Brazil through the Renova Foundation, an entity established by BHP and Vale to oversee compensation efforts.

The 2015 disaster released tens of millions of cubic meters of toxic waste and mud, devastating communities along the Doce River and leaving a trail of environmental destruction. While BHP and Vale have disbursed billions in settlements and constructed replacement housing for affected families, the London lawsuit has highlighted ongoing legal and ethical debates about corporate accountability for global environmental disasters.

Critics have also raised concerns about the role of Pogust Goodhead, alleging that the firm misled vulnerable Brazilian claimants and charged excessive fees, potentially diverting critical resources from those affected. Brazilian courts have questioned some of the law firm’s practices, though Pogust Goodhead has denied all allegations.

The ruling underscores the international implications of environmental disasters and corporate liability, emphasizing that companies headquartered abroad can face legal scrutiny for overseas operations. The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving multinational firms and environmental accountability, reinforcing the need for stricter oversight of industrial projects worldwide.

As BHP prepares its appeal, the victims and advocacy groups continue to call for transparency, fair compensation, and stronger safeguards to prevent similar disasters in the future. The London High Court ruling reaffirms the principle that corporate responsibility transcends borders, especially when environmental and human costs are involved.

Keywords: BHP dam collapse, Mariana Brazil disaster, BHP liability, environmental disaster, global corporate accountability, High Court ruling, Samarco dam collapse