Case Muzzled. Court strikes out injured coal miner, backs BHP

BHP has won sweeping closure orders against coal miner Simon Turner after the court dismissed the miner’s case. Stephanie Tran reports.

The Federal Court of Australia has struck out a landmark case brought by an injured coal miner against BHP Group Limited and related entities, refused permission to renew his case and ordered key court documents to be removed from the public docket.

Inside orders At the hearing on Friday, Judge Needham struck out Simon Turner’s initial application and statement of claim against the first defendant, labor hire firm Chandler Macleod Group Limited, without permission to repeat.

The court also ruled in favor of BHP and its subsidiaries and the Commonwealth agency Coal LSL.

Turner, a former coal miner who broke his back while working on a BHP mine site, was suing for damages and alleging illegal conduct in connection with his work. He appeared in court as a self-represented plaintiff and faced teams of senior counsel and lawyers acting on behalf of corporate defendants.

Speaking after the verdict, Turner described the decision as a “miscarriage of justice”.

“I plan to appeal this decision to the Full Bench with a fully funded legal team,” he said.

“Everyone deserves their day in court. Crimes cannot be suppressed or corrected. The law applies equally to everyone.”

Judge Needham’s reasons will be published on Monday.

Wild Accusations. Even BHP’s own evidence was silenced by the court

Statement of claim removed for “abuse of process”

Judge Needham ordered Turner’s statement of claim to be removed from the court file, finding that it contained material “that was an abuse of the Court processes”.

The original application, filed on October 28, 2025, will also be removed and listed in Sections 8-12 under the heading “Particulars of the Case”. paragraphs will be replaced by a corrected version to be issued by the court.

Broad temporary suppression orders

The court also granted broad temporary restraining orders pending the issuance of final suppression orders.

Until further notice, the following documents are prohibited from being published and disclosed except by the court and the legal representatives of the parties:

• Turner’s statement of claim;
• The affidavit submitted on October 28, 2025;
• Interim application filed by the second, third and fourth defendants on 11 December 2025;
• An affidavit by BHP lawyer Trent Matthew Forno and a secret piece of evidence;
• An outline of the submissions and evidence submitted in relation to the suppression application; And
• 19-21 of the hearing report dated February 12, 2026. The pages disclose the information determined by the court and included in the corrections made to the original application.

BHP participants were instructed to prepare draft orders reflecting the suppression-related portion of the court’s reasons to be submitted to Judge Needham’s chambers within 14 days. Final suppression decisions will be made in the chambers or on a date to be determined.

Editor’s Note: The principles of ‘open justice’ (fairness, equality and access) were harshly tested in this case. Aside from extensive suppression orders issued to BHP and four other defendants, BHP never filed a defence.

Simon Turner was unable to pay for the transcripts of his own proceedings and efforts by this publisher to access the transcripts were unsuccessful. The Federal Court awarded the transcription service to a Canadian company that charged $1,952.53 for the transcripts of the final hearing.

But even when MWM agreed to pay for access to these ‘public documents’ regarding the proceedings in ‘open court’, the documents did not emerge. BHP also corrected parts of its own report.

This is not obvious justice; especially considering the legal power of the defendants. If Turner’s case is so worthless then why is BHP requesting that the Court suppress the case?

Is BHP making wild accusations with “wild accusations”?