Mariana committee seeks appeal as HSF Kramer criticises PGMBM’s case preparations

The 17-member committee representing around 442,000 claimants in the £36 billion Mariana dam litigation has sought permission to appeal the High Court’s 12 October ruling that it lacked authority to replace PGMBM as their lawyers.

Humphries Kerstetter, which represents the committee, announced the application to the Court of Appeal. The committee previously sought to transfer the claims arising from the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Brazil to Bailey Glasser International (BGI).

The committee applied directly to the Court of Appeal after the High Court refused permission, with the judge finding that an appeal had no real prospect of success.

Commenting on the appeal, BGI partner Faranak Ghajavand said the committee had acted in good faith and its concerns remained unresolved.Its decision to seek alternative legal representation was not taken lightly,” she said.

The move comes amid fresh tensions over preparations for the next stage of the litigation.

Committee dispute

PGMBM has applied to remove the existing committee, which was established under its contractual arrangements to represent claimants’ interests.

BHP’s lawyers at HSF Kramer have questioned how PGMBM is obtaining instructions while seeking to remove the committee, calling for clarification of who is authorised to instruct the firm.

BGI also raised concerns at Friday’s case management conference that it had not been kept informed of PGMBM’s application to remove the client committee and sought access to the relevant court documents.

Barrister shake-up

Correspondence seen by Non-Billable reveals a separate clash over preparations for a case management conference on 23 October, with HSF Kramer accusing PGMBM of leaving BHP to take the lead following a wholesale change of the claimants’ counsel team.

In a letter to the court dated 13 October, PGMBM said BGI had arranged for the claimants’ previous counsel team, who attended the July CMC, to act for it if it won the representation dispute. Those barristers were no longer instructed by PGMBM, it said, adding that it was appointing a new team.

‍Counsel appearing at the 23 October hearing would be new to the case and still familiarising themselves with its background, the firm said, leaving them unable to address or advance “heavy applications that require legacy knowledge in the case”.

In its response dated 18 October, HSF Kramer criticised PGMBM’s failure to respond to correspondence and accused it of handling preparations unfairly. It suggested that the firm’s approach, including the change of counsel, appeared designed to leave BHP bearing the work and cost of leading on case management.

HSF Kramer said this had already undermined BHP’s ability to prepare fairly and the court’s ability to manage the litigation, warning that those difficulties would continue.

Who gets copied

Friday’s hearing before Mr Justice Constable also revealed continuing disagreements over BGI’s role following its defeat in the representation dispute.

BGI, where former Pogust Goodhead chief executive Tom Goodhead has resurfaced, represents seven individual claimants from the client committee and sought to remain copied into correspondence concerning the wider proceedings.

PGMBM argued that requiring the firms to coordinate would introduce unnecessary complexity. Constable questioned whether adding another email address would create significant work and agreed BGI should continue receiving correspondence as an “observer”.

“You are entitled to be kept up to date and to contact the court if you have issues, but can’t dictate the way in which the dispute is handled,” he said.

The next stage of the litigation is scheduled to begin on 7 April 2027.