Law firm behind BHP dam case sued by its own funder for £84m
The city firm that helped win a historic ruling against BHP is now defending a massive claim from the investor that financed the case.
Pogust Goodhead, the London‑based firm that secured a landmark High Court judgment against mining giant BHP, is being sued by the Brazilian fund that financed the litigation. The claim, filed in the High Court, seeks more than £84m plus legal costs.
Funding dispute escalates
The dispute centres on a £42.7m interim payment that Pogust Goodhead received into its client account. The funder, Vinci SPS Capital Gestão de Recursos Ltda, alleges the firm breached its loan agreement by disbursing money to barristers and after‑the‑event insurers without obtaining the lender’s consent.
According to the claim form, Vinci SPS says the law firm was required to move the interim funds into a designated receivables account within a set period. Pogust Goodhead argues it cannot release the money until it invoices the claimants and settles a trust for its insurers, a position Vinci SPS rejects, insisting its rights outrank any insurer trust.
Legal backdrop and previous funding deals
Last November the High Court found BHP liable for a 2015 dam collapse in Brazil that killed 19 people. The next trial phase, dealing with causation and loss, is slated for April 2027. The litigation was originally funded by a $552.5m (£450m) deal with US‑based Gramercy Funds Management, which added a further $150m facility in June 2026.
Vinci SPS has engaged UK firm Fieldfisher to pursue the claim, while Pogust Goodhead has instructed DAC Beachcroft to defend it. The firm has faced other legal challenges, including a £2.2m claim from Seladore Legal over unpaid retainers in May 2025.
What lies ahead
If the court upholds Vinci SPS’s claim, Pogust Goodhead could be forced to repay the disputed amount and cover additional costs, potentially straining its cash flow ahead of the next BHP trial stage. The outcome may also influence how litigation funders structure future agreements with law firms, prompting tighter controls on fund disbursement.
The case underscores the delicate balance between aggressive funding of large‑scale lawsuits and the contractual obligations that bind the parties involved.
