A Closer Look at Corporate Accountability in Environmental Disasters
The landmark judgment in the Municipio de Mariana v (1) BHP Group (UK) Limited (2) BHP Group Limited [2025] EWHC 3001 (TCC) case, regarding the catastrophic collapse of the Fundao Dam in Brazil, was handed down on 14 November 2025, ten years after the disaster which caused reverberations across continents and legal systems (“the Judgment”).
At the heart of the ruling was the question of BHP’s liability for the actions of Samarco Mineração S.A., the group company that operated the dam.
This article examines the decision, with particular emphasis on how BHP was found liable for Samarco’s conduct in Brazil, and what this means for multinational corporate accountability.
Background
The Fundao Dam, situated in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, collapsed in November 2015.
The collapse unleashed a torrent of mining waste that devastated local communities, polluted rivers, and claimed the lives of 19 people.
The environmental and human cost was immense, affecting thousands who lost homes, livelihoods, and access to clean water.
The dam was operated by Samarco, a joint venture between two mining giants: BHP Group (headquartered in the UK and Australia) and Vale S.A. (based in Brazil).
The Legal Challenge in England
In March 2023, we considered the disaster as victims of the disaster sought redress in the English courts, arguing that BHP, as a parent company, should be held liable for the actions of Samarco, a Brazilian company.
The case was brought by over 200,000 claimants, including individuals, municipalities, and businesses. Their central contention was that, being ultimately responsible for the actions of Samarco, BHP owed a duty of care and should be liable for the environmental and social harms caused by its subsidiary, notwithstanding the multi-national corporate structure.
High Court’s Analysis of BHP’s Liability
In the Judgment, the High Court undertook a thorough analysis of parent company liability in particular, given the facts of this case, in the context of environmental disasters.
The Court considered well-established principles of English tort law, focusing on whether BHP exercised sufficient control over Samarco’s operations and whether it had assumed responsibility for the dam’s safety.
Key to the Court’s reasoning was the recognition that BHP, as part of the joint venture, was not a passive investor. Evidence presented showed that BHP was actively involved in the management and oversight of Samarco, with board representation, shared technical expertise and regular reporting mechanisms.
The Court found that BHP had the ability to influence operational decisions, particularly those relating to safety and risk management.
Crucially, internal documents and communications revealed that BHP was aware of potential risks associated with the Fundao Dam and had been involved in discussions on how these risks should be mitigated.
This level of involvement demonstrated that BHP had “assumed responsibility” for the safe operation of the dam, thereby satisfying one of the key requirements for imposing a duty of care under English law.
Group Company Liability: Piercing the Corporate Veil
The Judgment also addressed the concept of the “corporate veil”.
The corporate veil is a legal separation between parent and subsidiary companies.
Traditionally, English courts have been reluctant to pierce this veil except in circumstances of fraud or serious wrongdoing.
However, in the Judgment the High Court clarified that where a parent company exercises significant control and oversight over a subsidiary’s operations, and where claimants rely on assurances or statements made by the parent company, liability may arise.
In the Judgment, the Court found that BHP’s involvement went beyond mere ownership.
Through its joint venture structure and direct involvement in Samarco’s decision making, BHP had blurred the boundaries that would normally shield it from liability.
The Court observed that BHP’s public statements regarding safety and sustainability, as well as its internal governance arrangements, meant that it had effectively held itself out as responsible for the welfare of communities affected by Samarco’s operations.
Implications for Corporate Accountability
The Judgment sends a clear message to multinational companies that they cannot hide behind complex corporate structures to avoid liability for the actions of their subsidiaries.
Parent companies should take note from the findings in this Judgment that where there is evidence of substantial control, involvement, and assumption of responsibility, parent companies may be held to account for loss and damage caused by their subsidiaries, regardless of whether the outcomes are catastrophic environmental disasters such as the Fundao Dam collapse, or loss and damage on a smaller scale.
Importantly, the Judgment clearly defines that this responsibility subsists even when the loss and damage occur abroad.
For the victims of the Fundao Dam collapse, the Judgment offers hope of meaningful redress in the English courts. For BHP and other multinationals, it underscores the need for robust governance, transparency, and proactive risk management in all group operations. The case will undoubtedly influence how companies approach oversight of foreign subsidiaries, particularly in high-risk sectors such as mining.
Conclusion
The Judgment establishes a precedent for holding parent companies liable for the actions of group entities when they exercise significant control and assume responsibility.
By finding BHP liable for Samarco’s management of the dam, the Court has advanced the principle that corporate accountability must extend cross-jurisdiction and beyond borders and legal forms, ensuring that those affected by environmental disasters have access to justice.
At the time of writing, BHP had intimated they would be appealing the Judgment.
