The former head of Pogust Goodhead will re-enter the Mariana dam litigation by joining Bailey Glasser International (BGI), which states it has assumed the lead role in the case. This transition follows a legal dispute among competing firms over control of the next phase, which involves calculating damages after a High Court decision last year concluded that the dam’s collapse was foreseeable and that BHP bore strict liability.
The litigation stems from the 2015 failure of the Fundão Dam, operated by Samarco, a partnership between mining corporation BHP and Brazilian company Vale. The breach released 45 million cubic meters of iron ore tailings, resulting in 19 deaths and the destruction of nearby communities. A second hearing scheduled for April 2027 will establish the compensation owed to survivors and affected families.
Thomas Goodhead, who was removed from Pogust Goodhead in 2024 following accusations of misappropriating client funds, will now lead the case at BGI alongside three former colleagues from his previous firm. The group includes Jeremy Evans, Faranak Ghajavand, and Guy Robson, as well as senior barristers Alain Choo Choy KC and Andrew Fulton KC. More than 15 attorneys with prior involvement in the litigation have joined BGI.
Read Also: Shell loses bid to block lawsuit over Niger Delta spills
BGI’s appointment was approved by a client committee, though Pogust Goodhead rejects the claim of a leadership change. The dispute has been listed to be heard next month. The firm maintains that existing agreements remain in place, contingent on a successful outcome for the claimants.
The development follows Goodhead’s public denial of misconduct, including allegations of a forced removal and improper expenses. In November 2025, he told Gazette that corporate hospitality at Pogust Goodhead was typical for firms of its standing. His move shows a broader realignment of legal representation in the Mariana case, with BGI now positioned as the primary firm for the next phase.
Legal observers note that the shift could influence the April 2027 hearing, where judges will assess the full extent of damages. The case remains a major environmental liability claim, with the final award dependent on the court’s interpretation of liability and the scope of harm.
Leave a Reply