BHP is suing us. Here is the File Number.

$300 billion multinational giant BHP is suing Michael West Media to silence media reports of a wage theft case. Michael West reports.

Big Australian BHP has filed an application in the Federal Court to silence an independent Australian newsroom. This means: for BHP, for journalism and for Australia.

Cases filed with the prosecutor’s office Federal Court of Australia is Hunter Valley Energy Coal Pty Ltd & Ors [BHP] v Simon Alexander Turner and Anor. NSD 752 of 2026. Filed May 6, 2026.

“&Anor” is this journalist. More precisely, it is Westpub Pty Ltd, the company that publishes Michael West Media.

BHP Group Limited went to the Federal Court of Australia and asked the Court to order an Australian newsroom to remove a YouTube video, remove an article, hand over every copy of underlying material and tell BHP’s lawyers the names of everyone to whom this material was provided.

This is what BHP wants from us.

The orders BHP seeks against Westpub in its initial application include:

First, a permanent injunction restricting Westpub from “disclosing, publishing, transmitting or otherwise making available to any person” any information relating to a settlement conference held by Microsoft Teams on June 7, 2024.

Parties present at this meeting included Tom Hunter-Leahy, Lachlan Apps, Sophie Croft (BHP), Simon Turner (coal miner), Trent Forno (MinterEllison partner representing BHP), John Hickey (BHP solicitor) and Hugh Carter (BHP’s solicitor).General Counsel in Senator Malcolm Roberts’ office).

Secondly, an order requiring Westpub to “permanently remove” a YouTube video published on this imprint on 15 April 2026 (Pauline, Please Explain | West Report) and an article published on 26 April 2026 (BHP threatens to leak in David v Goliath court case).

BHP threatens coal miner over David v Goliath court leak

Third, an order requiring Westpub to disclose to BHP’s lawyers MinterEllison the identity of anyone given any recordings or other material relating to the conference and a description of the material provided.

Fourth, an order requiring Westpub to deliver to MinterEllison all originals and copies of any recordings and other conference-related materials.

That’s what BHP is asking the Federal Court of Australia to force a small, independent newsroom to do in 2026.

This isn’t really about us. It’s also all about us.

BHP’s 2026 application for NSD 752 is due to a former Mt Arthur Coal worker named Simon Turner, who broke his back while working at the Mt Arthur coal mine in the Hunter Valley in 2015. He was paid $400 a week, although he should have been earning $137,000 a year, and he wanted compensation.

David versus Goliath. Court accidentally obtains miner’s real evidence against BHP

This imprint has been writing about Simon Turner for years. We published at least eleven stories about his case and its circumstances. We will continue to write about this unless ordered otherwise by the court.

We are not the only starting point in this story. This is a story of national importance because there are thousands of miners who are underpaid on a ‘casual’ basis. A. class action approaching.

So this article isn’t just about Simon Turner.

This is about BHP, a Great Australian, a 140-year-old institution that claims ESG disclosures and good corporate citizenship, going to the Federal Court of Australia and asking the Court to order an independent Australian newsroom not to broadcast on a matter of demonstrable public interest.

So it’s about an event that happened. The court file proves this happened. The file number is 2026 NSD 752.

In Turner’s case earlier this year, the Court did not require BHP to submit a defence. The case was dismissed, and Turner’s claim and the trial transcripts were subject to strict confidentiality orders. He appealed the decision, but the Court has not yet set a hearing date.

Why oppose BHP?

There are many reasons why we oppose BHP and MinterEllison’s demands.

The first reason is this. This reporter left mainstream media in 2016 to start an independent newsroom, and after years in legacy media, he concluded that the editorial freedoms we journalists care about most cannot be credibly exercised in an institution whose revenue also depends on the good will of advertisers, sponsors, partners and shareholders who are the subject of much of the most structurally important journalism.

We started MWM with the assumption that it was in the public interest to conceal the growing power of corporations in our democracy.

We have always told our readers that this newsroom is not for sale.

No getting bullied either. These promises would be in vain as soon as the first letter of demand arrived and we signed a commitment not to publish something we believed would be in the public interest.

The second reason is that the issues that BHP has asked us not to publish are because there are wider issues of public interest at stake here. These relate to the treatment of coal mine production workers in New South Wales.

They concern the operation of insurance arrangements for these workers.

These concern the conduct of major mining companies and their lawyers in long-running cases. In short, they are about what an Australian newsroom’s readers have the right to know. It would be treason to bow to the demands of companies that use the law for commercial purposes. MWM readers and society.

What does this action tell us about BHP?

The case tells us things about BHP and the legal system.

BHP is a sophisticated plaintiff. The decision to bring such an initial application to the Federal Court of Australia against an independent journalist defendant in 2026 was probably made on recommendation. Someone weighed the costs, benefits, and optics and made the call.

Three observations on this account:

observation one. The story that BHP is asking the Court to suppress is, in BHP’s own position, a story that BHP regards as material. You can’t sue the Federal Court of Australia for costs and the resulting publicity to suppress a story you think no one cares about. The practice itself is a concession that the underlying issues are real.

Observation two. The application textbook is the Streisand Effect. Filing mechanically ensured that the underlying story was now more widely reported. There is no version of 2026 NSD 752 in which BHP has shown less public interest in Simon Turner’s case than it did the morning before the application was made.

Observation three. BHP chose this case in parallel with its existing case. Same Job Same Wage There are currently disputes with Mt Arthur Coal and the Fair Work Commission, which is seeking a High Court review of orders affecting more than two thousand workers at its Queensland operations.

Suing a coal miner and a journalist while simultaneously suing pay regulations that affect thousands of people is not the action of a company that is comfortable with the underlying questions.

Who signed this application at BHP? Will BHP shareholders be happy with their company’s refusal to publicly defend its industrial relations practices?

freedom of the press

This is now an issue of press freedom. In industry and legal circles, it will be referred to as one in presentations and discussions. The next time a leading Australian corporate defendant is tempted to sue an independent newsroom for the removal of a YouTube video and an article on a matter of public interest under the doctrine of equitable breach of trust, the conduct of NSD 752 of 2026 will be included in the package.

If you are an Australian journalist reading this, your view on whether this case should be brought is one that matters. The Australian press is one of the few institutions in a position to draw the line at such corporate behavior in 2026. We don’t need to draw together. We need to draw this.

BHP, like MinterEllison – in defense of its actions in the public sphere – has consistently refused to respond to questions about stories related to the Turner affair; Both chose instead to resort to legal threats to address issues of public interest.

David versus Goliaths. Lone coal miner battles BHP and partners in Court over massive wage theft

Explanation: Westpub Pty Ltd, publisher Michael West Mediais the defendant in the trial that is the subject of this article. MWM is funded by readers. The author is the editor and publisher of this imprint and the sole director of the publishing company. The matters reported in this article are taken from the civil court docket NSD 752 of 2026, previously published works on this imprint, and correspondence between the parties.

Michael West was founded Michael West Media Focusing on public interest journalism in 2016, particularly the increasing power of corporations over democracy. West was previously a journalist and editor for Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and was even once a stockbroker.