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

This case concerned a dispute over the inclusion of additional sample settlement agreements in the context of a complex environmental litigation involving Município de Mariana & Others against BHP Group (UK) Ltd, with Vale S.A. as the third party.

TLDR:

• Claimants sought to include additional sample settlement agreements in the trial.
• The court had to decide whether to incorporate these additional agreements.
• The court declined to add the additional sample agreements due to potential complications.

The claimants, Município de Mariana & Others, initiated a legal action against BHP Group (UK) Ltd, with Vale S.A. as the third party. The case arose from a significant environmental incident, and the parties were in the process of negotiating settlement agreements. The claimants proposed the inclusion of additional sample settlement agreements that covered indigenous communities, which had slightly different wording from the existing agreements.

During the hearing, the defendants argued for a sample set of settlement agreements that was as wide and representative as possible. They believed that including these additional agreements would be beneficial for the court's consideration of the existing issues in the Stage 1 trial.

However, Mrs Justice O'Farrell expressed concerns about the implications of adding these new agreements at this stage. She noted that the parties had not had the opportunity to work through the potential complications that might arise from including these agreements, which could adversely affect the Stage 1 trial.

The judge highlighted the risk of the issues becoming more complicated and time-consuming if the additional agreements were incorporated. She emphasized that if the agreements did not raise any new issues beyond those already identified, the court's ruling on the existing issues should automatically apply to them. Conversely, if they did raise new issues, it would necessitate a broader investigation, which could delay the proceedings.

Given these considerations, Mrs Justice O'Farrell decided it was too late to add the additional sample agreements. She concluded that incorporating them could lead to unnecessary complications and delays in the trial.

The ruling underscored the importance of timely and efficient management of legal proceedings, particularly in complex cases involving multiple parties and intricate issues.

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 955 (TCC)