Município De Mariana (and the Claimants identified in the Schedules to the Claim Forms) v BHP Group Plc (formerly BHP Billiton Plc)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Turner |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: E50LV008; E50LV010; |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
[2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC)
THE HON. Mr Justice Turner
Case Nos: E50LV008; E50LV010;
HT-2019-LIV-00005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIVERPOOL SITTING IN MANCHESTER
IN THE MATTER OF THE FUNDÃO DAM DISASTER
Manchester Civil and Family Court Centre,
1, Bridge Street West,
Manchester, M60 9DJ
Charles Hollander QC, Graham Dunning QC, Nicholas Harrison, Jonathan McDonagh, Zahra Al-Rikabi, Elizabeth Stevens, Ibar McCarthy, Gregor Hogan, Anirudh Mather and Russel Hopkins (instructed by PGMBM a trading name of Excello Law Limited) for the Claimants
Charles Gibson QC, Shaheed Fatima QC, Daniel Toledano QC, Nicholas Sloboda, Maximilian Schlote, Stephanie Wood and Veena Srirangam (instructed by Slaughter and May) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 July 2020
Further written submissions: 2 September 2020
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Turner
INTRODUCTION
On 5 November 2015, the Fundão dam in south eastern Brazil collapsed and over 40 million cubic metres of iron ore mine tailings were released into the Doce River. The consequences were catastrophic.
The polluting waste eventually found its way to the Atlantic Ocean over 400 miles away. It destroyed, damaged or contaminated everything in its path. Nineteen people died. Hundreds of thousands suffered loss. Entire villages were obliterated.
In these proceedings, about 202,600 individual, corporate and institutional claimants contend that the defendants are liable to compensate them for losses sustained as a result of the disaster.
The defendants not only deny liability but now seek to persuade the court, on four distinct grounds, that the case against them should be allowed to proceed no further. This judgment is my determination of those issues. 1
SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
The amount of documentary material which has been deployed by the parties to date is vast.
In particular, much of the evidence relates to the question of whether full and timely redress is available to these claimants in Brazil and what impediments stand in their way of achieving it. The following factors, among others, have played a part in explaining (but not wholly excusing) the quantity of material which the parties have chosen to deploy:
(i) The huge number of claimants;
(ii) The disparate nature of the claims which they bring;
(iii) The significant contrasts between Brazilian procedural law and the English Civil Procedure Rules;
(iv) The complex history of proceedings to date in Brazil and competing predictions as to their likely future.
These features, however, go only some way towards justifying the accumulation of huge swathes of documentation. The trial bundles comprise 2,085 items set out in 30,015 pages which have been “distilled” into no fewer
than five core bundles. There are nine further bundles containing 127 authorities. The defendants' skeleton argument was 187 pages long and was the product of the collective endeavours of three leading and four junior counsel. The claimants, not to be outdone, deployed a skeleton argument which was 211 pages long and, by the end of the hearing, had been supplemented incrementally by no fewer than 22 appendices the steady flow of which gave rise to a growing frisson of resentment on the part of the defendants. Submissions lasted for eight full days and have been recorded in a transcript which is about 1,200 pages in lengthIn this context, I am reminded of the observations of Lord Briggs in Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2019] 2 W.L.R. 1051:
“6. It is necessary to say something at the outset about the disproportionate way in which these jurisdiction issues have been litigated. In Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd (The Spiliada) [1987] AC 460, 465, Lord Templeman said this, about what was, even then, the disproportionate manner in which jurisdiction challenges were litigated:
“In the result, it seems to me that the solution of disputes about the relative merits of trial in England and trial abroad is pre-eminently a matter for the trial judge. Commercial Court judges are very experienced in these matters. In nearly every case evidence is on affidavit by witnesses of acknowledged probity. I hope that in future the judge will be allowed to study the evidence and refresh his memory of the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley in this case in the quiet of his room without expense to the parties; that he will not be referred to other decisions on other facts; and that submissions will be measured in hours and not days. An appeal should be rare and the appellate court should be slow to interfere.”
That dictum is, in my mind equally applicable to all the judges in what are now the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, including, as in this case, the Technology and Construction Court.”
During the course of the hearing, I expressed concern to Mr Gibson QC, representing the defendants, about the quantity of material which had been deployed by both sides. His explanation relied partly upon the complexity of the proceedings in Brazil and partly upon the need to respond to the submissions raised and evidence submitted on behalf of the claimants in what, to my mind, had deteriorated into a forensic arms race.
The first case management conference to be listed before me took place just three weeks before the hearing had been due to commence. I was presented with a fait accompli in terms of the volume of material which had already been collated and deployed by the parties over the preceding period of seven months. I took the view that any attempt retrospectively, and at the eleventh hour, to limit such material would be likely to do more harm than good. The parties would be distracted from the task of preparing the case and there would almost inevitably have arisen time consuming disputes as to what material should be abandoned and what retained. The genie was already out of the bottle. For these reasons, I indicated that I would proceed on a “we are where we are” basis. I permitted the parties to serve further evidence to deal with specifically defined recent developments in the Brazilian proceedings but to be strictly confined to no more than 20 pages each.
Notwithstanding the superabundance of material before me, the claimants sought, close to the end of the hearing, to raise an entirely new issue. I refused to entertain the point and my ruling to this effect was challenged by way of an application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. This application was subsequently abandoned but not before it was necessary for me to respond further to an application by the claimants that I should revisit my decision and change my mind. The resulting judgment, to which I have already referred in passing above, itself extends to 97 paragraphs and is to be found at Município De Mariana v BHP Group Plc [2020] EWHC 2471 (TCC).
I will say no more about the accumulation of documentation in this case, or the recent procedural distractions, and will not seek, at this stage at any rate, to allocate responsibility or blame for the state of affairs which has arisen. Nevertheless, I must (and will) resist the temptation to enter the lists of competitive prolixity with a substantive judgment of commensurate length. If I were to reproduce the detail of all the materials presented for my consideration and attempt to resolve every disputed issue of primary fact or secondary inference, the result would be a paradigm of the law of diminishing returns.
As the Court of Appeal held in Customs and Excise Commissioners v A and Another [2003] Fam. 55:
“82 A judge's task is not easy. One does often have to spend time absorbing arguments advanced by the parties which in the event turn out not to be central to the decision-making process…
83 However, judges should bear in mind that the primary function of a first instance judgment is to find facts and identify the crucial legal points and to advance reasons for deciding them in a particular way. The longer a judgment is and the more issues with which it deals the greater the likelihood that: (i) the losing party, the Court of Appeal and any future readers of the judgment will not be able to identify the crucial matters which swayed the judge; (ii) the judgment will contain something with which the unsuccessful party can legitimately take issue and attempt to launch an appeal; (iii) citation of the judgment in future cases will lengthen the hearing of those future cases because time will be taken sorting out the precise status of the judicial observation in question; (iv) reading the judgment will occupy a considerable amount of the time of legal advisers to other parties in future cases who again will have to sort out the status of the judicial observation in question. All this adds to the cost of obtaining legal advice.
84 Our system of full judgments has many advantages but one must also be conscious of the disadvantages.”
Where, therefore, I have omitted reference to any aspect of a party's case it is because I have considered that its importance is not sufficient to impact upon my...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr Flavio De Carvalho Pinto Viegas and 1, 516 others v Mr José Luis Cutrale
...together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments arising from separate proceedings. In Municipio De Mariana v BHP Group Plc [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC), Turner J suggested that the issue of whether claims are “related” is “inextricably bound up with the risk of irreconcilable judgments” a......
-
Município De Mariana (and the Claimants identified in the Schedules to the Claim Forms) v BHP Group Plc (formerly BHP Billiton Plc)
...is set out in paragraphs 15 to 46 of the substantive judgment to be found at Município De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) and no purpose would be served by rehearsing that narrative 3 That decision has generated a number of ancillary issues between the parties r......
-
Athena Capital Fund Sicav-Fis S.C.A. v Secretariat of State for the Holy See
...Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd [2020] UKSC 37, [2020] Bus LR 422, [99] and Municipio de Mariana v BHP [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC), [261], adopting principles summarised by Bryan J in Mad Atelier International BV v Manes [2020] EWHC 1014, [82]. Each of these referred to ......
-
Ness Global Services Ltd v Perform Content Services Ltd
...see Gulf International Bank (above) at [88]–[92]; Município De Mariana v. BHP Group plc & others (Re Fundao Dam Disaster) [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) at [204]–[207]. The editors of Dicey suggest that it accords with “ a broad international concept underlying the general principle of lis pendens......
-
Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc: UK Supreme Court allows Nigerian citizens' environmental damage claim to proceed against UK parent company
...19-379]. The District Court is expected to render its judgment within a few months. 17 Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group Plc & Others [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). 18 Ibid, para. 141. 19 Ibid, para. 104. It is reported that the claimants intend to seek permission to appeal the [View source.] Jacqu......
-
High Court Strikes Out “Largest White Elephant in the History of Group Actions”
...likely to appeal.[21] This post was prepared with the assistance of Manon Cote in the London office of Latham & Watkins. Endnotes [1] [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). [2] See also Vedanta Resources v. Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20; Okpabi v. Royal Dutch Shell and SPDC [2018] EWCA Civ 191; AAA & Others v. U......
-
What Rules Will Apply to Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit? Part Four
...is the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, found here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/29/enacted/data.htm. [ii] [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). [iii] Rome I and II are implemented in the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.)......
-
What Rules Will Apply to Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit? Part Four
...is the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, found here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/29/enacted/data.htm. [ii] [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). [iii] Rome I and II are implemented in the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.)......