Thai court holds gold mine operator liable for toxic runoff in a decade-old environmental case

BANGKOK– A Thai court ruled Tuesday that the operator of a major gold mine in northern Thailand is responsible for environmental damage and health impacts on nearby villagers, in a highly anticipated verdict that could set a precedent for climate litigation in the country.

The case follows a class-action lawsuit filed in 2016 by hundreds of villagers in Phichit province, who accused Australia’s Chatree gold mine of causing toxic contamination through its operations. The Bangkok Civil Court found the company liable and ordered compensation for affected residents.

The decision could determine whether communities view the courts as “a path or a dead end”, said Emilie Palamy Pradichit of the Bangkok-based human rights group Manushya Foundation, which supported the villagers in the lawsuit.

The ruling could set a positive precedent for future climate cases in Thailand and set a new benchmark for environmental law in Southeast Asia, according to legal analysts. These types of “polluter pays” cases are increasingly common in the region, reflecting a global trend of increasing climate litigation.

The verdict is a “wake-up call to many cases that are happening now” in other Southeast Asian countries, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, said Jameela Joy Reyes of the London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

Courts often look to rulings from other jurisdictions to guide their decisions, even if those precedents are not binding, according to Reyes, who said this is especially true in new legal areas like climate litigation.

More than 300 villagers have filed a complaint against Akara Resources, operator of the Chatree gold mine, the largest in Thailand and owned by the Australian company Kingsgate Consolidated. It is the nation’s first environmental class-action lawsuit following a 2015 legal amendment allowing such suits.

They alleged toxic runoff from the mine, and medical examinations showed high levels of heavy metals, including arsenic, cyanide and manganese, among residents. On Tuesday, the judge said the company had failed to prove the contamination was not linked to its operations and ordered compensation ranging from 50,000 ($1,535) to 200,000 baht ($6,143) per affected person, plus payments for medical care and emotional distress.

Chatree’s legal controversy spans several cases, several medical investigations and a counter-suit. There was also direct intervention by former Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, who used his expanded powers under the post-coup military government to stop mining operations.

Kingsgate then sued the Thai government in 2017 for unfair license revocation. The two sides reached an agreement last year.

Thanyalak Boontham, one of the plaintiffs, said her blood tests showed levels of toxins that exceeded safety standards. Although the compensation fell short of expectations, she welcomed the decision.

“The fight is also for our future generation,” she declared in court after the verdict. “I would like them to be able to grow up in a good environment.”

Cherdsak Utha-aroon, Akara Resources’ general manager of sustainability, who was present at the hearing, later told The Associated Press that the company respected the court’s ruling and that its legal team would discuss next steps. He declined to comment further.

These “polluter pays” cases, in which communities sue companies for environmental damages, are increasingly common in climate litigation, said Georgina Lloyd, an environmental law expert at the United Nations Environment Program.

“Asia’s share of climate and environmental litigation is increasing,” Lloyd said. “We continue to see this trend increase both in terms of caseload but also in terms of the geographic reach of jurisdictions. »

About 225 climate litigation cases were filed in 2024, according to the Grantham Research Institute, which tracks nearly 3,000 cases in 60 countries.

The number of climate cases in climate-vulnerable regions like Southeast Asia, which have been hit by deadly extreme weather events that caused billions of dollars in damage, is expected to rise, the institute’s Reyes said.

Two landmark “polluter pays” cases in Southeast Asia take a novel legal approach in attempting to hold companies responsible for “climate damages” triggered by their emissions causing climate change, Reyes said.

Last year, survivors of Super Typhoon Odette in the Philippines sued energy giant Shell in the UK on the grounds that Shell’s emissions were a major contributor to climate change and therefore the intensity of the typhoon.

In 2025, a Swiss court also allowed a lawsuit by fishermen on the Indonesian island of Pari to be filed against cement company Holcim over emissions they say are contributing to flooding and sea level rise that threaten their homes and livelihoods.

These two cases, along with the Chatree verdict in Thailand, constitute a “very poignant call for discussions on climate justice,” Reyes said.

Regardless of compensation, Reyes said, “the fact that the court proclaimed liability is a victory in itself. This could carry over to other jurisdictions and be used as a warning to other companies in the future.”

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from several private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropic organizations, a list of supporters, and funded coverage areas at AP.org.