BHP has had almost an entire court case muzzled and its demands met to toss out a coal miner’s case without even filing a defence. Stephanie Tran reports.
In a judgment published on Monday evening, Justice Needham of the Federal Court found that Simon Turner’s case “had no reasonable prospects of success” and his statement of claim was “an abuse of process” as it sought to re-litigate a matter that had already been settled.
Turner was a coal miner at BHP’s Mt Arthur coal mine who had been employed by labour-hire firm Chandler Macleod, although incorrectly classified as an “office worker”. He broke his back in 2015 and has been seeking compensation from the mining giant since.
Turner sought to set aside a deed he signed with BHP in 2022 on the basis that it incorrectly characterised his employment and was signed under duress.
However, Justice Needham ruled in favour of BHP, striking out Turner’s claim in an interlocutory hearing after suppressing large swathes of the case. In her decision, J Needham found that Simon Turner’s claim that the BHP deed was void was
inadequately pleaded and lacked particulars.
Court book tricky
During the hearing, Turner told the Court that the ‘court book’ had been filed with the consent of the respondents (BHP and others) only and did not include documents he had referenced in his submissions.
Wild Accusations. BHP has even its own evidence muzzled by Court
He said he was unable to access the electronic court book via a link sent by John Hickey, a solicitor for BHP, on the afternoon of February 10 – just before the hearing the next day.
Turner advised the parties multiple times before the hearing that he was unable to access the court book and did not consent to it being filed as it did not contain the evidence he sought to rely on.
BHP ducks for cover
MWM asked the respondents’ solicitors MinterEllison what steps, if any, were taken to facilitate Turner’s access and whether he had been given an opportunity to contribute to the court book prior to filing.
They [BHP] did not respond to a request for comment.
The respondents objected to Turner being able to file evidence or to have an adjournment to do so.
While noting that the court does its best to assist self-represented litigants, Needham J refused leave for Turner to file further evidence at the hearing, finding that the respondents would be prejudiced by material they had not seen.
She indicated she would hear him on any specific document he sought to tender, but no such application was made.
Sweeping confidentiality and suppression orders
Justice Needham also granted extensive confidentiality and suppression orders sought by the BHP respondents, removing key documents from public view and redacting parts of Turner’s originating application.
BHP had sought to redact paragraphs 8-12 under the “Details of Claim” section of Turner’s originating application, arguing that those paragraphs disclosed confidential and “without prejudice” discussions and included speculation about the motivations and state of mind of company representatives.
Turner opposed the redaction, telling the Court that “most of this is out in the public domain and available on court websites and documents that are already there”.
In her published reasons, Justice Needham found in favour of the respondents.
“It seems to me that paragraphs 8-12 … should be redacted,” Needham J found.
Case Muzzled. Court strikes out injured coal miner, backs BHP
Found in BHP’s favour
“They expose details of “without prejudice” discussions, not merely the fact that a meeting happened (in particular paragraphs 9 to 11) and, compellingly, do not relate to the relief sought. Because I have made the determination to redact them, I will not provide more detail, but suffice to say that there are references to meetings, offers, and discussions which have no relevance to the relief sought in the Originating Application or the Statement of Claim.”
She ordered that the originating application be removed from the court file and replaced with a redacted version.
The respondents had also sought suppression of a broad range of material, including the originating application, statement of claim, Turner’s affidavit, BHP’s suppression application and supporting affidavit, and the evidence and submissions filed in relation to the suppression application.
Found in favour again
Justice Needham accepted that submission, finding that at this stage of the proceedings the principle of open justice had “not yet been engaged” because the claims were subject to dismissal and strikeout applications. Given her decision to grant summary judgment and strike out the proceeding, she noted that no defences would ever be filed to answer the allegations.
“It is appropriate, given that no Defence or evidence will be filed by the respondents, that the material which is currently on the file setting out confidential matters and allegations of fraud and dishonesty which are not balanced by the respondents’ views be subject to a suppression order,” she wrote.
Suppression – the “proper administration of justice”
The judge concluded that suppression was “necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice”, and ordered that the documents be suppressed on an interim basis pending final orders. The suppression extends to 3 pages of the 12 February 2026 hearing transcript that deal with the substance of the redacted paragraphs.
Separately, Justice Needham ruled that the statement of claim itself constituted an abuse of process and should be removed from the court file altogether.
All documents filed by Turner have since been removed from the online court file. The following documents have also been removed from the file:
- BHP’s interlocutory application for the suppression order and the accompanying affidavit by their solicitor Trent Forno dated 11 December 2025
- Submissions by Coal LSL filed on 2 February 2026
- A further affidavit filed by Mr Forno on 10 February 2026
No leave to re-plead
Turner was also refused leave to replead his case. All respondents had submitted that leave to replead should not be granted. Having struck out the pleading against the first respondent, Chandler Macleod Group Limited, the court considered whether Turner should be given an opportunity to file an amended claim.
The judge noted that the court may decline to grant leave where there would be “no utility” in allowing a party to replead. While Turner did not address the issue separately, Justice Needham said she assumed he would have sought the opportunity to amend.
However, she concluded there was no reasonable cause of action capable of being pleaded.
Turner’s submissions, she said, were based on his view that he had an arguable case, a proposition the court rejected. In addition, the judge found that a deed executed with Chandler Macleod barred further action in relation to the matters it covered.
“I would not be minded to grant any such application to replead because, as outlined above, it does not seem to me that there is a reasonable cause of action available to be pleaded,” the judgment stated.
Turner previously told MWM that he intends to appeal the decision.
David v the Goliaths. Lone coal miner tackles BHP & co in Court over massive wage theft
Stephanie is a journalist with a background in both law and journalism. She has worked at The Guardian and as a paralegal, where she assisted Crikey’s defence team in the high-profile defamation case brought by Lachlan Murdoch. Her reporting has been recognised nationally, earning her the 2021 Democracy’s Watchdogs Award for Student Investigative Reporting and a nomination for the 2021 Walkley Student Journalist of the Year Award.