High Court affirms PGMBM's role for claimants

The High Court has ruled that PGMBM will continue to represent hundreds of thousands of Brazilian claimants in the Mariana litigation against mining giant BHP. This decision puts an end to a challenge posed by the Client Committee, which sought to collectively replace PGMBM with Bailey Glasser International (BGI) as their legal representative. In a landmark ruling that has broad implications for one of the largest group actions in English legal history, the Court determined that the Client Committee lacked the contractual authority to terminate PGMBM’s involvement in the case.

The dispute highlighted the extent of powers held by the Client Committee within the contractual structure governing the litigation. PGMBM argued that while the Committee was tasked with managing the litigation and facilitating communication among clients, it did not possess the authority to collectively change legal representation for such a vast number of individual claimants. Significantly, the Court clarified that this ruling did not infringe upon the individual rights of claimants to select their own legal counsel.

Court proceedings have also provided context regarding the historical backdrop of the case, which stems from the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in November 2015. This disaster not only resulted in the tragic deaths of 19 individuals but also inflicted significant environmental and economic devastation across the Rio Doce basin. In a prior judgment in November 2025, the High Court had already found BHP liable for the environmental disaster, paving the way for ongoing legal proceedings to secure justice for affected communities.

As the Mariana litigation progresses towards Stage 2, the trial is currently set to commence in April 2027. PGMBM has reiterated its commitment to its clients, with Alicia Alinia, CEO of PGMBM stating: 

“The Court has provided the clarity that hundreds of thousands of Mariana victims needed. PGMBM remains their solicitors in the proceedings, and the attempted collective transfer to BGI did not change that. 

This was never about restricting an individual client's freedom to choose their lawyer. The question was whether that choice could be made for hundreds of thousands of people collectively, without each of them making that decision for themselves.

Our clients did not create this dispute and should never have been caught in the uncertainty it created. 

We can now return the focus to protecting the April 2027 trial and securing the compensation they have waited almost eleven years to receive.”