Vale SA v BHP Group (UK) Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5 November 2015, the Fundão Dam in southeast Brazil collapsed, resulting in 19 deaths, destruction of villages, and extensive damage. The remediation and compensation costs were estimated at approximately £25 billion. The dam was owned and operated by Company A, a joint venture owned by the Appellant and Company B. The respondents in these proceedings include Company B and its ultimate parent company, collectively referred to as "Company B".

Following the disaster, multiple civil proceedings were initiated in Brazil against Company A, the Appellant, and Company B, including individual claims and class actions. Few claims have been made against Company B in Brazil. However, in November 2018, approximately 200,000 claimants issued proceedings against Company B in this jurisdiction, with further claims increasing the total to about 732,000 claimants by February 2023. All claims are advanced under Brazilian law.

Company B initially obtained an order striking out the claims as an abuse of process and on grounds that this jurisdiction was inappropriate, but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal. Company B then sought to join the Appellant as a Part 20 defendant. The Appellant challenged the English Court's jurisdiction on the basis of no serious issue to be tried and the jurisdiction being an inappropriate forum.

By a judgment dated 7 August 2023, the trial judge refused these jurisdictional challenges. The Appellant sought permission to appeal ("PTA") against this decision, which was initially refused by the trial judge. The PTA application was then directed to be reconsidered by a higher court, which heard the application on 15 November 2023.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding the Appellant's involvement as a Part 20 defendant.
2. Whether the English Court is the appropriate forum for the Part 20 claims against the Appellant, applying the Spiliada principles and related case law.
3. Whether the Appellant can be ready to participate in the threshold liability trial scheduled for Autumn 2024.
4. Whether the Appellant should continue to participate in trial preparations pending final resolution of jurisdictional appeals.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that Company B's claim for "contribution" is not recognised under Brazilian law, limiting the relief to a declaration only.
• The Appellant argued that the judge failed to correctly apply the Spiliada principles in determining the appropriate forum.
• Specifically, the Appellant alleged errors including failure to consider paragraph 73 of Altimo, failure to find Altimo directly analogous, adopting an erroneous starting point by prioritising claims against Company B in England, and insufficient weight given to the risk of irreconcilable decisions.
• The Appellant argued it would not be ready to participate in the threshold liability trial in Autumn 2024.
• The Appellant asserted it should not be compelled to participate in trial preparations while jurisdictional appeals remain outstanding.

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents maintained that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the form of relief claimed by Company B is immaterial to this question.
• They argued the judge correctly applied the Spiliada principles, carefully balancing the complex factual matrix, including the large number of claimants and proceedings in Brazil.
• The respondents contended that the English jurisdiction is appropriate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of irreconcilable judgments, as the claims against the Appellant are part of substantial proceedings already before the English Court.
• They submitted that the Appellant could be ready for the trial in Autumn 2024, and the judge's case management decisions were reasonable and final.
• The respondents opposed the Appellant's attempt to avoid participation in trial preparations pending jurisdictional appeals, emphasizing the need for cooperation in complex multi-party litigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming the high threshold for appellate intervention in factual and evaluative decisions, emphasizing the well-established principles from Volpi and Samsung that an appeal court should only interfere if the trial judge was plainly wrong or made a significant error of principle.

Regarding the serious issue to be tried, the court found that the Appellant's challenge was insubstantial, as the nature of the relief sought by Company B did not affect the existence of a serious issue.

In applying the Spiliada principles, the court considered the judgment as a whole and rejected the Appellant's claims of error. The court held that the trial judge properly balanced the factors, including the complex multiplicity of proceedings in Brazil, the large number of claimants in the English proceedings, and the risk of irreconcilable judgments if the claims were split between jurisdictions.

The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the judge gave undue weight to the English proceedings, noting that the judge acknowledged the Brazilian proceedings and gave appropriate consideration to all relevant factors.

On the risk of irreconcilable decisions, the court agreed with the judge that hearing the Part 20 claims against the Appellant in England would reduce the risk of inconsistent judgments and was thus in the interests of justice.

Regarding readiness for trial, the court found the judge's case management decisions reasonable and final, emphasizing that the Appellant had ample opportunity to prepare and that it was too late to challenge trial readiness.

Finally, the court rejected the Appellant's attempt to avoid participation in trial preparations pending jurisdictional appeals, stressing the importance of cooperation in complex multi-party litigation and the need to avoid unnecessary delay.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED PERMISSION TO APPEAL the trial judge's decision dated 7 August 2023, thereby upholding the refusal to strike out the Part 20 claims and confirming the English Court as the appropriate forum for those claims.

The direct effect is that the Part 20 claims against the Appellant will proceed as part of the ongoing proceedings before the English Court, and the Appellant will be required to participate in trial preparations and the threshold liability trial scheduled for Autumn 2024.

No new precedent was established; the decision reinforces established principles regarding appellate review, the application of the Spiliada test, and case management in complex multi-party litigation.