Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor

Applications to extend procedural deadlines are determined by applying the overriding objective and weighing all relevant circumstances. A reasonable extension should generally be granted where it will not imperil a hearing date or disrupt proceedings, but compliance with court orders remains of paramount importance. The fact that refusal may end a claim is relevant but does not itself justify relief.

Under the CPR 3.9(1) test, the court must assess the seriousness and significance of the default, consider the explanation, and evaluate all the circumstances, including efficient and proportionate litigation and enforcement of compliance. Extensions may be granted despite serious default where the explanation is adequate and prejudice can be managed, but further indulgence may be refused or made subject to an unless order.

The claimants sought extensions of time for serving additional particulars of claim, an amended new claim form containing missing addresses, and an updated master schedule in extensive group litigation arising from the Mariana dam disaster. They also sought permission to file additional particulars through a secure file-transfer server and dispensation permitting generic community addresses for indigenous and Quilombola claimants. The defendants opposed the extensions but did not oppose the filing and address-dispensation applications.

The court therefore considered whether the outstanding deadlines should be extended, applying the overriding objective, the principles concerning extensions of time, and the CPR 3.9(1) test to the missing-address default.

1. Applications granted. The court extended the time for service of the final additional particulars of claim to 8 September 2023, permitted service of the amended new claim form by that date, and extended service of the updated master schedule to 6 October 2023. Permission to file the additional particulars through FileZilla was granted, and the agreed dispensation concerning generic community addresses was allowed.
2. The overriding objective in CPR 1.1 requires the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Relevant considerations include access to justice, prejudice to the opposing party, efficient use of court resources, the importance of compliance, and the effect on future hearings and case management.
3. The principles identified in Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1559 and Hallam Estates Limited v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661 were applied. A reasonable extension should generally be granted where it will not imperil a future hearing or otherwise disrupt proceedings. However, access to justice is not absolute, and parties cannot rely on it to disregard orders or cause continuing procedural disruption.
4. For the missing addresses, the court applied the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906. The default was serious and significant, but the claimants had provided an adequate explanation and had taken the steps reasonably available to them. Considering all the circumstances, the defendants’ prejudice did not justify refusing a further short extension.
5. The extension for the additional particulars was not made a final or unless order, although further delay could lead to refusal, postponement of the threshold liability trial, or separate treatment of late claims. The amended claim form extension was made an unless order: claimants without addresses by 4 pm on 8 September 2023 were to be removed from the master schedule and struck through on the claim form.