Landmark Ruling: BHP Held Liable for Brazil’s Catastrophic Mining Disaster

Fri Nov 14 2025 22:42:18 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A significant ruling from London's High Court finds mining giant BHP responsible for the deadly 2015 dam collapse in Brazil, marking one of the worst environmental disasters in the country's history.

The High Court in London has ruled that BHP is liable for the catastrophic dam collapse in Mariana, Brazil, which resulted in 19 fatalities and widespread environmental destruction. The case, which encompasses claims from over 600,000 individuals, may involve up to £36bn in damages. The dam's collapse released millions of cubic meters of toxic waste, prompting BHP to appeal the decision while the claimants seek justice.

In a landmark ruling, the High Court in London has found mining giant BHP liable for the catastrophic 2015 dam collapse in Brazil that led to one of the worst environmental disasters in the nation's history. The disaster, which claimed 19 lives, unleashed over 60 million cubic meters of toxic sludge, severely polluting the river Doce and destroying entire communities.

The civil lawsuit encompasses claims from more than 600,000 individuals, including residents, local authorities, and businesses, with potential compensation valued up to £36 billion ($48 billion). BHP has indicated plans to appeal the ruling, arguing that many claimants have already received compensation through Brazilian legal channels.

The dam, located in Mariana in southeastern Brazil, was operated by Samarco, a joint venture between BHP and Vale. Following the collapse, significant environmental damage and loss of property prompted a diffuse wave of legal actions. Claimants argued that the dam was raised when it was unsafe, a view supported by the presiding judge, who emphasized that this reckless decision was instrumental in the disaster's occurrence.

Simultaneously, a separate lawsuit has been initiated against Vale, BHP's partner in Samarco, in the Netherlands, with over 70,000 plaintiffs involved.

In their defense, BHP maintains that the claim process in Brazil remains the most effective means of redress for the incident, asserting that the English lawsuit duplicates existing proceedings and has already secured settlements for over 130,000 individuals affected by the disaster.

However, ongoing disputes persist regarding the legal representation of claimants. The law firm Pogust Goodhead, which advocates for human rights and environmental law, faces allegations from some Brazilian authorities of exploiting vulnerable communities for profit. These claims have raised questions around the ethical practices within the legal framework established to address the fallout from the dam collapse.

As the appeal process unfolds, the implications of this ruling could set significant precedents concerning corporate responsibility and environmental law, while survivors continue to seek justice for the losses they endured during this devastating event.