BHP and its solicitors MinterEllison sought urgent court orders last night to suppress their lawsuit against coal miner Simon Turner and Michael West Media, Michael West reports.
In an extraordinary move to muzzle press coverage of a wages theft claim by disabled coal miner Simon Turner, Australia’s biggest company BHP sought an urgent application from the Federal Court asking for suppression orders over its case set down to be heard before Justice Needham at 10am this morning.
This is a lawsuit which BHP had brought itself.
In February, former coal miner Simon Turner brought a claim against BHP and four related entities for underpayment of wages. Turner injured his back at the Mt Arthur coal mine in 2015 and has been fighting to get compensation since. This publication covered the case, which was also subject to suppression orders at the request of BHP.
BHP then sued Turner and Westpub (the publisher of Michael West Media) for breach of confidentiality relating to the publication of a meeting in 2024. The defendants counter-claimed over a conflict of interest by MinterEllison whose partner and BHP solicitor for the firm Trent Forno was present at the 2024 meeting and was therefore a material witness to the BHP case as well as being BHP’s solicitor.
Mr Forno’s name disappeared from the email correspondence between the parties this week. BHP had earlier sought an urgent hearing but that was denied by Justice Needham.
Simon Turner has appealed the decision in the February case however an appeal date has not yet been set by the Court. Instead, BHP has launched its breach of confidentiality proceedings to be heard today. Although it was laid down as a case management hearing, BHP has moved to have its application for suppression orders heard.
After sending notice of its suppression application at 7.48pm last night, MinterEllison for BHP sent its Court Book to the parties at 8.27pm.
Was this an omen?
On the evening before the BHP action in February, MinterEllison had sent the Court Book to Simon Turner, however Turner was unable to open the court book which left him unprepared for the trial the next day. It was not known at the time of publication of this story whether Mr Turner was already in bed or not, or whether he was able to access the BHP/MinterEllison court book this time.
He may have already been in bed, on the floor of his mother’s garage, knowing that he had to catch the train down from Newcastle early in the morning today to face BHP in the confidentiality lawsuit.
Both Turner and West have applied to be self-represented in the proceedings.
Along with the suppression application, Westpub, the second respondent in today’s proceedings, received from MinterEllison an affidavit by Michael Thomas Fletcher, another partner in the firm.
David v Goliath. Court gets real evidence from miner v BHP by accident
Fletcher is seeking orders from the Court to have stories and videos published by Westpub removed from publication; stories relating to the 2024 teleconference attended by Tom Hunter-Leahy and Lachlan Apps (the solicitors then acting for Turner), Sophie Croft and John Hickey (BHP), Trent Forno (Minter Ellison, for BHP), Turner himself, and Hugh Carter, General Counsel to Senator Malcolm Roberts.
Coal wage theft. BHP’s solicitor MinterEllison faces conflict of interest claim
Following a claim filed with the Federal Court by Turner and West earlier this month that MinterEllison had a conflict of interest in suing them because Trent Forno, BHP’s solicitor, was present at the meeting, Mr Forno appeared to be no longer acting in the claim.
Yet another partner of MinterEllison Michael Thomas Fletcher appears now to be acting. It is not known whether the firm, a partnership, is aware of the principle of “imputed disqualification” (or imputed conflict), whereby a conflict of interest for one partner in a firm generally extends to the entire firm.
As partners are deemed to act as a single unit in the eyes of the law, the knowledge and loyalties of one lawyer are automatically attributed to all other partners.
MinterEllison however is presumably aware of the principle of open justice – that is that court proceedings should be conducted publicly, ensuring trials are subject to professional and public scrutiny. This principle, globally accepted and rooted in the common law, ensures justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done, thereby safeguarding the rule of law.
The author of this story is director of Westpub, publisher of Michael West Media and Second Respondent in today’s hearing.
Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker.