header-logo header-logo

21 January 2026
Issue: 8146 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Costs , International
printer mail-detail

Mammoth pollution class action costs cut by two-thirds

The High Court has dealt a blow to thousands of Brazilians suing mining giant BHP Group following the collapse of the Fundão Dam

19 people died, villages were destroyed and about 700,000 people lost their homes in the 2015 disaster. More than 600,000 claimants seek compensation, worth about £36bn.

The trial is split into two stages. In November, the claimants, represented by Pogust Goodhead, secured a victory in the stage 1 trial ([2025] EWHC 3001 (TCC)), when the High Court found the mining company strictly liable as ‘polluters’ for the damage caused by the collapse.

In Município De Mariana v BHP Group (UK) and another [2026] EWHC 73 (TCC), the claimants sought £113.5m costs for the stage 1 trial, plus pre-judgment interest. They calculated their total costs at that point as £189m.

The defendants contested this sum as ‘shockingly excessive’ compared to their own costs of £125m.

Delivering her judgment this week, Mrs Justice O’Farrell held BHP should pay 90% of the claimants’ costs for the first stage. However, she slashed the sum to £43m.

O’Farrell J noted there had been no costs budgeting for the stage 1 trial and the statement of costs contained ‘a very high-level overview’ of the categories and amounts. It included £14m for counsel fees ‘identified as lump sums for each individual’, she said, as well as £44m for a walk-in centre and call centre fee earners, £73m for UK fee earners and £73m for Brazil fee earners. While the ‘rates, hours and total sums are tabulated for each fee earner’ between 2018 and 2025, there was ‘no link to the tasks carried out by those individuals or the dates on which work was carried out’.

O’Farrell J said the litigation was ‘very complex’ with ‘significant challenges’ given many of the claimants live in rural Brazil. Nevertheless, the costs were ‘extraordinarily high and the level of detail provided very limited’.

She decided the walk-in centre and call centre costs were not recoverable at this stage, took £7m off the disbursements and, ‘adopting a cautious approach’ of 60% rather than 90% of the remainder, arrived at the final £43m sum.

Issue: 8146 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Costs , International
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll