Mass Tort brief
Mariana Dam Ouster Blocked and AI Strict Liability
The High Court protects Pogust Goodhead's £36bn disaster mandate while law commissioners propose strict liability for artificial intelligence.
Mass Tort
The High Court blocked a rival takeover of the £36B Mariana dam suit — keeping Pogust Goodhead and Gramercy in control against BHP.
BackgroundThe 2015 collapse of Brazil's Fundão tailings dam killed 19 people and triggered England's largest group litigation against Anglo-Australian miner BHP Group. London class actions depend on collective fee agreements and outside litigation funders, creating fierce rivalries among commercial claimant law firms competing for control.
- Mr Justice Waksman ruled the 17-member committee lacked contractual power under group litigation agreements to transfer claimants to rival US law firm Bailey Glasser.
- The judgment shielded the 400,000 claimants from an estimated £2B in adverse legal costs that would have been triggered had the retainer switch been approved.
- Permission to appeal was refused, cementing Pogust Goodhead and Gramercy on the court record as lead legal representatives for the upcoming Stage 2 quantum trial.
Mass Tort
The High Court ordered Mercedes into an autumn damages trial — setting binding compensation formulas for 450,000 British diesel drivers.
BackgroundThe Pan-NOx action is the largest consumer product liability battle in English history, targeting vehicle manufacturers for installing illegal emissions cheating software. Earlier liability judgments cleared Ford, Renault, and Nissan while finding prohibited thermal defeat devices in select Mercedes and Stellantis models.
- Lead claimant firm Leigh Day is simultaneously petitioning the Court of Appeal to overturn earlier High Court judgments that cleared competing carmakers of liability.
- The eight-week autumn trial will fix vehicle-by-vehicle compensation tariffs, establishing the ultimate financial payout for roughly 450,000 British Mercedes owners.
- The court previously imposed aggressive cost budgeting across the 13 Group Litigation Orders, stripping £25M from claimant legal budgets to enforce litigation proportionality.
Mass Tort
The Law Commission wants software classed as physical goods — stripping tech vendors of negligence defenses when AI causes physical harm.
BackgroundThe UK's product liability regime was written in 1987 for tangible manufactured goods, leaving intangible code and digital services outside strict statutory liability rules. Injured consumers currently bear the nearly impossible burden of proving developer fault when autonomous algorithms or AI medical tools malfunction.
- The proposal brings software vendors, app platforms, and online marketplaces under strict statutory duty, closing exemptions that previously shielded overseas code suppliers.
- Commissioners recommended relaxing the rigid 10-year longstop limitation period to protect claimants who suffer latent or cumulative injuries from complex algorithmic systems.
- Enterprise software providers and commercial insurers warned the overhaul will compel technology companies to redraft customer warranties and significantly raise cyber liability premiums.
Unlock the full brief
Sign in to read every signal, takeaway, and source. Free account — Apple, Google, or email.
