Alinia: Decisive victory for clients
The High Court has ruled that the Mariana Dam client committee did not have the power to change solicitors for the 400,000 people and organisations pursuing billions of pounds in damages.
Mr Justice Waksman sided with PGMBM – the class action firm formerly known as Pogust Goodhead – in its battle with Bailey Glasser International (BGI), a new joint venture between an English law firm run by former PG staff, including the eponymous Tom Goodhead [1], and US firm Bailey & Glasser.
Last month, BGI announced its existence and that the client committee had decided to change solicitors [2].
The committee is not a body appointed by the court. PGMBM has described it as “a group of 17 members appointed by the previous management and whose identities are kept confidential”.
In its application to the court, PGMBM argued that the committee did not have the authority, acting on its own, to transfer the claims of hundreds of thousands of other people who have individual contracts with the firm.
It also sought a declaration that the committee could not stop PGMBM from instructing Quinn Emanuel and new counsel for the damages stage of the litigation, as it announced in June [3].
Waksman J gave oral judgment yesterday and the full decision is awaited. He refused permission to appeal.
Speaking at a press briefing, PGMBM chief executive Alicia Alinia described the decision as “a decisive victory for the hundreds of thousands of Mariana claimants for whom we have fought repeatedly to protect their rights”.
She went on: “Let me make it absolutely clear. It was never the case that we were trying to prevent clients from choosing their own lawyers. Every client has that right. It was about ensuring that nobody else could make that decision without proper authority and informed consent.
“Our clients are not commodities to be transferred between law firms. These are people whose lives and livelihoods and communities were devastated by the disaster. Their interest must come before anyone else’s commercial ambitions.”
Ms Alinia noted that the after-the-event insurance and litigation funding backing the claim could not simply be moved over too if another law firm took over the case, and accused BGI of having neither in place and not explaining to the clients the costs liability swapping lawyers could expose them to.
Following the High Court’s landmark liability ruling in favour of the claimants last November – and the Court of Appeal’s refusal of defendant BHP’s application for permission to appeal – stage 2 of the proceedings will determine issues of causation, loss and damages caused by the Brazilian dam disaster.
The trial evidence is to be heard from April to December 2027, with closing submissions listed for March 2028. In the wake of the liability ruling, there are now 400,000 claimants, 200,000 less than when the claim began.
Depending on what happens, a stage 3 trial may also be required, where each claimant would need to prove their individual damages.
Ms Alinia added: “The communities have waited long enough for justice. That’s just a reality. We will not allow the theatrics of any actors or competing commercial interests to derail that timetable.”
We reported last week how Pogust Goodhead had reverted to the name PGMBM [4] and Ms Alinia explained that this was for “client continuity”, but that in time there would be a completely new brand.
A spokesman for Humphries Kerstetter, the City solicitors for the client committee, said: “The client committee raised serious concerns with its lawyers Pogust Goodhead. When those concerns were not resolved it took the decision to seek to appoint new legal representation to the case.
“We will be analysing the judgment in depth before deciding on our next steps. As has always been the case, any decision will be made in the best interests of all claimants.”
A BGI spokesman said: “We share the committee’s disappointment that its right to choose legal representation on behalf of all Mariana Dam claimants was not upheld by the court.
“The committee has been clear about who it believes should represent the claimants, having raised serious and repeated concerns about the conduct and direction of the litigation under the current firm.
“The committee will now consider its options carefully with its legal advisers and it has BGI’s full support in doing so. Our commitment to the claimants and to their fight for justice is unchanged.”