Judicial Affirmation of BHP Liability Regarding the 2015 Mariana Dam Failure

法院確認 BHP 對於 2015 年 Mariana 水壩潰堤事故之法律責任

May 6, 2026, 20:24
Latin AmericaInternational

Introduction

The London Court of Appeal has denied BHP's application to challenge a High Court ruling that establishes the company's liability for the 2015 collapse of the Fundao dam in Brazil.

倫敦上訴法院已駁回 BHP 的申請，不允許其挑戰高等法院關於該公司須為 2015 年巴西 Fundao 水壩崩塌承擔責任的裁決。

Main Body

The legal proceedings originate from the November 2015 failure of the Fundao dam in Minas Gerais, an asset operated by Samarco, a joint venture between BHP and Vale. This event resulted in 19 fatalities and the discharge of approximately 40 million cubic metres of toxic waste into the Doce River. In November 2024, the High Court determined that the risk of collapse was foreseeable and that BHP is liable under Brazilian law.

本法律程序源於 2015 年 11 月米納斯Же賴斯（Minas Gerais）Fundao 水壩的潰堤，該資產由 BHP 與 Vale 的合資公司 Samarco 營運。此次事件導致 19 人死亡，約 4,000 萬立方公尺的有毒廢棄物排放至 Doce 河。2024 年 11 月，高等法院判定崩塌風險是可以預見的，且 BHP 根據巴西法律須承擔責任。

BHP sought a rapprochement with the High Court's findings by applying for permission to appeal, contending that the litigation duplicated existing reparation programs in Brazil. However, Lord Justice Fraser and Lord Justice Lewison rejected this bid, asserting that the original judgment was reasonable and devoid of procedural irregularities. The court further dismissed BHP's arguments regarding the Brazilian law of limitation as groundless. While the court permitted an expedited appeal concerning the interest on legal costs—which exceeded £213 million as of January—the core finding of liability remains intact.

BHP 申請上訴許可以試圖翻轉高等法院的調查結果，主張該訴訟與巴西現有的賠償計畫重複。然而，Fraser 法官與 Lewison 法官駁回了此申請，認定原判合理且不存在程序違規。法院進一步將 BHP 關於巴西時效法的論點斥為毫無根據。雖然法院允許就法律成本利息（截至 1 月已超過 2.13 億英鎊）進行快速上訴，但關於責任承擔的核心認定依然維持不變。

Stakeholder positioning remains polarized. Legal representatives for the claimants, Pogust Goodhead, characterize the ruling as a definitive victory for the affected population. Conversely, BHP maintains that a 170 billion reais ($A48bn) compensation agreement executed in Brazil constitutes the most efficient resolution. The company further posits that approximately 40% of the UK claimant class has already received compensation, which should necessitate the discontinuation of those specific claims.

利益相關者的立場依然兩極分化。原告法律代表 Pogust Goodhead 將此次裁決描述為受影響人群的決定性勝利。相反地，BHP 主張在巴西執行的 1,700 億雷亞爾（約 480 億澳幣）賠償協議才是最有效的解決方案。該公司進一步認為，英國原告群體中約 40% 已收到賠償，因此應停止這些特定的索賠。

Conclusion

BHP remains legally liable for the disaster, with a subsequent trial to determine the quantum of damages scheduled for April 2027.

BHP 仍對該災難承擔法律責任，決定損害賠償金額的後續審理定於 2027 年 4 月舉行。

Vocabulary Learning

⚖️ The Architecture of Legal Precision: Nominalization & Latent Agency

To move from B2 to C2, a student must transition from describing actions to constructing states of being. The provided text is a masterclass in Nominalization—the process of turning verbs (actions) into nouns (concepts). This allows the writer to pack an immense amount of information into a single clause while maintaining a detached, objective, and authoritative tone.

🔍 The 'C2 Pivot': Action →\rightarrow Entity

Observe how the text avoids simple subject-verb-object patterns in favor of complex noun phrases:

  • B2 Approach: BHP tried to bring their views closer to the court's findings. →\rightarrow C2 Execution: *"BHP sought a rapprochement with the High Court's findings..."

Analysis: The word rapprochement (a loanword from French) doesn't just mean 'bringing together'; it implies a formal re-establishment of harmonious relations. By nominalizing the act of seeking agreement, the writer shifts the focus from the action of seeking to the concept of the reconciliation itself.

🧩 Syntactic Density & Formal Collocations

C2 mastery requires an intuition for "Lexical Bundles"—words that naturally cluster in high-level discourse. Note the precision of these pairings in the text:

  1. "Procedural irregularities": Not just 'mistakes' (B2), but systemic failures in the process.
  2. "Quantum of damages": In legal English, quantum is not about physics; it refers specifically to the amount or size of a claim. Using 'amount' would be B2; using 'quantum' is C2.
  3. "Devoid of": A sophisticated alternative to 'without' or 'lacking,' providing a sense of absolute emptiness.

🛠️ Linguistic Deconstruction: The Passive-Impersonal

Notice the phrasing: "Stakeholder positioning remains polarized."

Instead of saying "Stakeholders disagree," the writer creates a noun phrase (Stakeholder positioning) and assigns it a state (polarized). This removes the human element and treats the disagreement as a static, observable phenomenon. This is the hallmark of academic and judicial writing: the depersonalization of conflict to enhance the appearance of objectivity.

Vocabulary Learning

judicial (adj.)
Relating to judges or courts.
Example:The judicial decision was upheld by the appellate court.
affirmation (n.)
A formal statement of confirmation or support.
Example:The court issued an affirmation of the lower court's ruling.
liability (n.)
Legal responsibility for an action or omission.
Example:The company faced liability for the environmental damage.
collapse (n.)
A sudden failure or fall.
Example:The collapse of the dam caused widespread flooding.
discharge (v.)
To release or expel.
Example:The toxic waste was discharged into the river.
toxic (adj.)
Poisonous or harmful to living organisms.
Example:The toxic chemicals posed a danger to wildlife.
foreseeability (n.)
The ability to predict an event.
Example:The court considered the foreseeability of the dam's failure.
rapprochement (n.)
An attempt to restore friendly relations.
Example:The parties sought a rapprochement after the dispute.
litigation (n.)
The process of taking legal action.
Example:The litigation lasted for several years.
procedural (adj.)
Relating to established methods or rules.
Example:Procedural irregularities were found in the trial.
groundless (adj.)
Lacking evidence or justification.
Example:The judge dismissed the claim as groundless.
stakeholder (n.)
A person or group with an interest in an outcome.
Example:Stakeholders demanded transparency from the company.
polarized (adj.)
Divided into extreme positions.
Example:The issue polarized the community.
efficient (adj.)
Achieving maximum productivity with minimum waste.
Example:The settlement was praised for its efficient resolution.
discontinuation (n.)
The act of stopping or ceasing something.
Example:The discontinuation of the project was announced.
quantum (n.)
A specific amount or quantity.
Example:The quantum of damages was set at $10 million.
damages (n.)
Monetary compensation for loss or injury.
Example:The court awarded damages to the victims.
scheduled (adj.)
Planned or arranged for a particular time.
Example:The trial is scheduled for April 2027.
Practice C2 words in a crossword→