BHP threatens to pursue journalist and coal miner for costs in court case it brought

BHP sued journalist Michael West and coal miner Simon Turner to settle wage theft claims. We are now being asked to pay MinterEllison’s expenses. Michael West reports.

BHP and its lawyers, MinterEllison, were surprised when they arrived in the Federal Court last month. Now, with a hearing set for this morning, the mining giant and its legal eagles at Minters appear to be seeking something quieter: orders sealing their own establishing evidence, takedown orders against that imprint, and costs against those they dragged into court.

BHP Group and two of its coal subsidiaries, Mt Arthur Coal and Hunter Valley Energy Coal, launched proceedings against former coal miner Simon Turner and the company behind him, Westpub Pty Ltd, in May. Michael West Media. The hearings were initiated based on the affidavit of MinterEllison partner Trent Forno.

This affidavit is now at the heart of the case, but not in the way BHP intended.

Simon Turner applied to prevent Trent Forno and MinterEllison from acting in the case on conflict of interest grounds. On 29 May the Court was told that Mr Forno had stood aside until this application was determined and that BHP was no longer relying on a key paragraph of its affidavit. In material submitted today for a hearing on 4 June, BHP now asks the Court to keep this entire affidavit confidential.

Self-declaration.

In other words, the document that started the case is the document that BHP no longer wants to trust or show to the public.

At the same time, BHP is pushing for orders that require Michael West Media orders to permanently remove the news and to suppress the cross-claim brought by Mr Turner (claiming that the historic settlement deeds were obtained by fraud). The contents of that cross-claim are currently subject to a temporary restraining order and cannot be reported here.

BHP denies the allegations and says they are unfounded.

I turn up the heat

And BHP is now seeking costs against Turner, a self-represented former worker who says he has been left without income or support since his workplace accident in 2015, and the small independent broadcaster.

Simon Turner argues that there is a more fundamental problem. He said he could not continue to act because MinterEllison was the key witness to the events at the heart of the case, the firm’s evidence made the case, and the firm was too involved in the matters now in dispute. He intends to argue that the court should decide who can attend the hearing before making any further decision.

Westpub says the case should not be involved in this process in any way.

He is not a party to the underlying events, he published as a journalist on a matter of public interest and no lawsuit has been filed against him. He offered to make the earlier closure permanent in exchange for release from the case, but BHP rejected the offer.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday, BHP’s lawyers at MinterEllison offered to stay the case against MWM if we made certain commitments regarding publishing.

The approach of partner Tom Fletcher and partner Jessica Ogden said: “BHP needs to understand Westpub’s intentions on this matter before presenting this material.”

We responded that our intention on the matter was that we were seeking a stay of proceedings and that we would be prepared to permanently take down the two stories that were subject to temporary confidentiality orders, but that we could not at this time accept their proposed commitment to future publication of the other stories.

It was the judge’s duty to decide on confidentiality.

Yesterday, until late in the evening, they responded with a hectic correspondence – the essence of which is described above – married with threats to demand expenses from us during the trial.

Hearing before Judge Needham this morning.

BHP and MinterEllison were not contacted for comment for this story because they declined to comment on the stories ahead of the lawsuit. This article reports on the cases and orders relating to NSD 752 of 2026 and does not reproduce material subject to the restraining orders.

The broader public interest theme is that the world’s largest mining company, which receives billions of dollars in public subsidies, is using the Court process to seal evidence and silence reports of its behavior towards an injured worker. It also relates to the fundamental problem of open justice.

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