Município de Mariana & Others vs BHP Group (UK) Ltd

This case concerned an application by the claimants, Município de Mariana & Others, seeking extended disclosure from the defendants, BHP Group (UK) Ltd, in a complex environmental litigation matter.

TLDR:

• Claimants sought extended disclosure from BHP Group (UK) Ltd.
• The court considered the necessity and proportionality of the extended disclosure.
• The court granted the application for extended disclosure to include additional individuals.

The claimants, Município de Mariana & Others, initiated proceedings against BHP Group (UK) Ltd, alleging that BHP had knowledge and involvement in events leading to a catastrophic environmental collapse. The claimants sought additional disclosure to support their case.

On 8 April 2024, the claimants filed an application for extended disclosure, aiming to include additional individuals not initially covered in the original disclosure order. The application was based on the necessity for just disposal of the proceedings and the proportionality of the requested documents.

The court referred to Paragraph 18 of Practice Direction 57AD, which allows for extended disclosure if it is necessary for the just disposal of proceedings and is reasonable and proportionate. The court also considered the overriding objective, including the complexity of the issues, the importance of the case, and the likelihood of relevant documents existing.

The claimants argued that the additional individuals had significant involvement and knowledge of the events leading to the collapse, making the extended disclosure necessary. They cited specific paragraphs in their re-amended reply to justify the inclusion of these individuals.

The defendants, represented by Mr. Sloboda KC, objected to the extended disclosure, arguing that the request was beyond the scope of the original pleading and that the additional individuals were not explicitly referred to in the initial sections of the claimants' Re-RAMPOC.

Mrs. Justice O'Farrell considered the arguments and concluded that the extended disclosure was appropriate and necessary. She noted that the inclusion of the additional individuals would not impose an onerous burden on the defendants and that the issues related to these individuals were already part of the pleadings.

The court ordered the extended disclosure to include the additional individuals identified in the claimants' re-amended reply, ensuring that the disclosure covered all relevant individuals involved in the case.

This ruling highlights the court's approach to extended disclosure in complex litigation, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and the just disposal of proceedings.

Legal representatives: Alain Choo Choy KC, Andrew Fulton KC, Jonathan McDonagh, Pippa Manby, Russell Hopkins, Grace Ferrier, Anisa Kassamali, and Antonia Eklund (instructed by PGMBM LAW LTD t/a Pogust Goodhead) for the Claimants; Daniel Toledano KC, Shaheed Fatima KC, Victoria Windle KC, Nicholas Sloboda KC, Maximillian Schlote, and Joe Johnson (instructed by Slaughter and May) for the Defendants; Vernon Flynn KC, Crawford Jamieson, and Charles Wall (instructed by White & Case) for the Third Party.

Judicial Panel: Mrs. Justice O'Farrell

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 952 (TCC)