BHP Group (UK) Limited (formerly BHP Billiton Plc and thereafter BHP Group Plc) and another (Respondents) v Municipio De Mariana and 32 others (Appellants)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0048

Parties

Appellant(s)

Municipio de Mariana & others

Respondent(s)

(1) BHP GROUP (UK) LTD (formerly BHP Billiton Plc and thereafter BHP Group Plc) (2) BHP GROUP LTD

Issue

Can seeking an injunction from a foreign court with the purpose of hindering or preventing proceedings in England and Wales amount to a criminal contempt of court?

Facts

The appellants are municipalities in Brazil. In November 2018, the appellants, alongside other claimants, commenced proceedings against the respondents (“BHP”) relating to losses caused by the collapse of the Fundão dam in Brazil in November 2015 in the High Court (the “TCC Claim”). The collapse released around 40 million cubic metres of tailings from iron ore mining and caused significant destruction. This dam was jointly operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHP. The TCC Claim proceeded to a ‘first stage’ trial lasting 12 weeks. One of the issues in the TCC Claim was whether the appellants had standing to sue outside Brazil as a matter of Brazilian federal law. In June 2024, four months before the ‘first stage’ trial was due to start the Brazilian mining association, ‘IBRAM’, commenced proceedings before the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (the “Federal Court”). The type of claim relied upon was one reserved for fundamental constitutional matters which, once filed, can only be terminated on the Federal Court’s own motion. In this claim, the requested relief was for the appellants, among other named municipalities, to seek an immediate stay of foreign proceedings (including the TCC Claim) and to suspend all interactions with their lawyers involved in such proceedings. The Federal Court did not ultimately grant this interim relied, however it is yet to determine whether Brazilian municipalities have standing to commence litigation outside of Brazil and, if so, to order that all such municipalities (including the appellants) discontinue such claims (including their further involvement in the TCC Claim). After their original denial, an entity connected to BHP, BHP Brasil, was discovered to have requested ‘IBRAM’ to bring the ‘IBRAM’ claim and agreed to fund their legal costs. In response to this, the appellants and other municipalities applied to the English courts to seek a type of injunction, known as an ‘anti-suit injunction’ or ‘ASI’, to restrain BHP further assisting or encouraging this claim. BHP agreed to the terms of the English anti-suit injunction, however BHP could not bring the ‘IBRAM’ claim to an end in the Federal Court as only the Federal Court itself could do that. The appellants applied to have BHP held in criminal contempt of court on 7 October 2024 arguing that their conduct related to the ‘IBRAM’ claim created a sufficient risk of interfering in the administration of justice in England and Wales (the “Contempt Application”). BHP applied to have the Contempt Application struck out on grounds that it did not disclose ‘reasonable grounds’ for bringing contempt proceedings (the “Strike Out Application”). The High Court refused BHP’s Strike Out Application. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision and struck out the appellants’ Contempt Application. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Date of issue

20 April 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top