Court to Review Case Involving UK-based Companies, Despite Allegations of Stronger Links to Brazil
In a significant ruling, the English High Court has accepted jurisdiction over a case involving Brazilian individuals, including certain protected indigenous groups, who brought claims against two UK companies. The case, Da Silva & Ors v Brazil Iron Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 606 (KB), highlights the court's willingness to hear claims in England against UK domiciled companies with overseas operations when claimants face a significant risk of being unable to fairly pursue their claims abroad for financial reasons.
The case concerns environmental damage allegedly caused by a Brazilian subsidiary of the UK companies. The Claimants, who were unable to fund themselves and had been unable to find adequate legal representation in Brazil over a prolonged period, opposed the Defendants' application for a declaration that the High Court should not hear the claim.
The Defendants argued that Brazil was the proper forum, citing Brazilian law as applying to the case. However, the Court considered factors such as the modest value of the individual claims, the number of Claimants, their limited means, the complexity of the claim, and the time such complex litigation might take in the Brazilian courts. These factors, along with the evidence that the Claimants could not fund themselves, led the Court to conclude that there was a real risk of inadequate access to justice in Brazil.
The Court emphasized that this was not a criticism of the Brazilian legal system, but rather, the features specific to this case prevented sufficient access to justice for these Claimants. The Defendants' proposals to mitigate concerns surrounding the Claimants' ability to access justice in Brazil, including offering to fund the Claimants' disbursements such as the costs of expert evidence, were rejected by the Court.
The Court held that it is not fair for a defendant to have any degree of control over a claimant's expert evidence, whether by paying for it or otherwise. Thus, the English courts were deemed the appropriate forum due to a real risk that the Claimants would not be able to fund necessary legal representation in Brazil.
This decision adds to an emerging line of case law in which the English courts have accepted jurisdiction over claims where there is a risk that claimants of limited financial means will not be able to adequately access justice in another jurisdiction with which the case is potentially more closely connected.
No other direct English examples focused on impecunious claimants and jurisdiction regarding companies with overseas operations were identified in the search results. As such, Da Silva & Ors v Brazil Iron Ltd & Anor is a leading recent example where impecuniosity and inability to fund litigation was a material factor in English courts accepting jurisdiction over cross-border claims.
The decision underscores the risk of litigation in the English courts against UK domiciled companies in relation to liability arising out of their international operations. It serves as a reminder that the English courts may be willing to hear claims brought by financially disadvantaged individuals when there is a real risk that they would not be able to obtain substantial justice in their home jurisdiction.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
