The dispute, unfolding in the High Court in London, comes as BHP prepares for a landmark damages trial that could become the largest claim in English legal history…reports Asian Lite News
BHP has been hit with a demand for at least £189 million in legal costs from claimants linked to Brazil’s Mariana dam disaster, one of the deadliest environmental catastrophes in the country’s history. The costs claim has sparked a fresh legal battle in London, with the mining company arguing that the figure is excessive and should be substantially reduced.
The case stems from the collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in November 2015, which released millions of cubic metres of toxic mining waste into the Doce River basin. The disaster killed 19 people, destroyed entire communities and polluted waterways across large parts of south-eastern Brazil, with impacts felt hundreds of kilometres downstream. The dam was jointly owned by Samarco, a company controlled by BHP and Brazilian mining group Vale.
Victims of the disaster have brought a large-scale civil claim against BHP in the English courts, arguing that the company should be held legally liable for the collapse and its consequences. Last month, the High Court ruled that BHP could be held responsible, a decision that significantly advanced the claim and paved the way for a trial on damages.
At a hearing in London this week, lawyers representing the claimants said their clients had been “the clear overall winner” in a November ruling and that BHP should pay a substantial proportion of the legal costs immediately. They argued that the scale and complexity of the case justified the level of expenditure incurred.
The £189 million costs claim includes legal fees as well as around £44 million spent on walk-in centres and call centre staff to communicate with roughly 620,000 victims. Lawyers for the claimants said these measures were necessary given the unprecedented scale of the litigation and the need to engage with large numbers of affected people across Brazil.
BHP has pushed back strongly against the claim, describing the figure as “shocking” and overstated. In written submissions, the company’s lawyers argued that the claimants had provided no proper explanation for many of the costs incurred and that the court should exclude large portions of the bill.
The mining giant’s legal team said it was “absurd” for the claimants to seek an interim payment of 60 per cent of the costs, which would amount to about £113 million, before a final decision has been made. BHP has asked the court to take a more proportionate approach, warning that the sums involved are far beyond what would normally be expected, even in complex litigation.
The dispute over costs is unfolding against the backdrop of a much larger legal battle. A separate trial, scheduled to begin in October 2026, will determine how much BHP may ultimately have to pay in damages. The claim, estimated at £36 billion, is widely regarded as the largest ever brought before the English courts.
The case has attracted intense attention from the legal industry, not only because of its scale but also because of the funding arrangements behind it. The claimants are represented by law firm Pogust Goodhead, whose funder has reportedly committed vast sums to pursuing the litigation. BHP’s lawyers told the court that the firm appeared willing to spend heavily without sufficient regard for proportionality.
Lawyers acting for the claimants defended the expenditure, arguing that the headline figure understated the true costs of the case because it excluded certain items. These include the expenses incurred by BHP in challenging the English court’s jurisdiction and a failed attempt by the miner to strike out the claim altogether.
BHP has said it will still seek damages from Vale, which jointly owned the iron ore venture responsible for the dam, if it is ultimately found liable. Vale has faced its own legal and financial consequences in Brazil following the disaster.
