Brazilian communities win UK lawsuit

More than 100 residents from two quilombola communities in Bahia state, Brazil, will have their claim against UK-based mining company Brazil Iron heard in an English court following a judgment handed down on Friday, 14 March.

The High Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the communities’ claim for damages against the two English defendant companies, Brazil Iron Limited (BIL) and Brazil Iron Trading Limited (BITL), and that the case can be tried at the High Court in London. The Mocó and Bocaina communities, living between 150 metres and two kilometres from the Fazenda Mocó mine in Bahia, allege that mining operations by the Brazilian subsidiary of the defendant companies, Brazil Iron Mineração Limitada (BIML), have caused them significant harm.

The 103 claimants argue that the mine’s operations have resulted in years of iron ore dust pollution, noise from machinery disturbing their sleep, and structural damage to their homes due to blasting. They also claim that their land, crops, and water sources have been contaminated, leading to physical and psychological injuries.

An inspection by the Secretariat of Health for the State of Bahia in early 2021 confirmed that due to mining activities, the two communities faced risks of physical and mental illness, and that the local drinking water was not fit for human consumption.

BIML has repeatedly breached the terms of its environmental authorisations, which initially permitted experimental mining. As a result, the State environmental regulator, INEMA, suspended mining activity in April 2022. In October 2023, the claimants secured an injunction against Brazil Iron to prevent alleged intimidation and harassment by representatives of the mine.

Although the defendants are English companies, they contested the jurisdiction of the English court, arguing that the case should be heard in Brazil. However, at a High Court hearing in December 2024, the claimants argued that if required to pursue their claim in Brazilian courts, they would likely be unable to secure legal representation and therefore be denied access to justice. The judge ruled in their favour, allowing the case to proceed in England.

The claimants are represented by Richard Meeran, partner and head of the international department at law firm Leigh Day, alongside senior associate solicitor Jonny Buckley.

Richard Meeran welcomed the ruling, stating, “Having fought for years to have their complaints against the mine addressed locally to no avail, I am delighted that our clients’ right to pursue their claims in England has prevailed. It is essential that British companies are held legally accountable for environmental harm allegedly caused by their overseas operations.”

Vanusia Souza dos Santos, a claimant and member of the Bocaina community association, also expressed relief, saying, “We are incredibly pleased that our claim will be heard in an English court and hope that our communities, Bocaina and Mocó, will be able to finally secure justice for the suffering and humiliation we have endured.”

Background information

Following Brexit, the UK is no longer subject to the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), which previously mandated jurisdiction over home-domiciled companies. From 1 January 2020, the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC) was reintroduced, allowing UK courts to decline cases if a more appropriate venue exists elsewhere.

FNC can result in significant injustice by preventing claimants from pursuing cases they cannot realistically litigate in their home country. Even when FNC arguments fail, they can cause significant cost and delay, adding to the hardship of often indigent claimants.

In the first post-Brexit FNC human rights case, Leigh Day successfully represented Nepalese workers against Dyson, arguing that their claim should be heard in the English courts rather than in Malaysia. The Court of Appeal ruled in December 2024 that Malaysian courts were not the appropriate venue, citing a real risk that the claimants would be unable to obtain legal representation. The substantive claims in that case are yet to be tried.

The legal principle that an FNC motion should be denied if there is cogent evidence of a real risk that claimants cannot secure legal representation locally was established in House of Lords rulings from 1997 and 2000, in cases where Leigh Day represented mineworkers in Namibia and South Africa. These precedents were instrumental in both the Dyson case and the ruling against Brazil Iron.