Coal wage theft. BHP’s solicitor MinterEllison faces conflict of interest claim

The coal miner sued by BHP asked the Federal Court to dismiss the MinterEllison lawyer who was also a witness in the case. Michael West reports.

Michael West Media He is being taken to court this Friday for allegedly breaching confidentiality orders by BHP, the world’s largest mining company. MWM denies this claim.

BHP built its own lawsuit to silence us on the sworn word of its own lawyer, Trent Forno of MinterEllison. on friday, coal miner Simon Turner moved to have the lawyer dismissed on the grounds of conflict of interest. BHP is seeking the removal of YouTube videos on this website about the Western Report, which relate to a meeting with Turner, BHP, Minter Ellison and a representative of One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts.

MinterEllison’s Trent Forno was at this meeting. The question Simon Turner now puts to the Court is this: Can the lawyer whose sworn account is the basis of BHP’s case also be the lawyer handling the case?

MinterEllison managing partner Virginia Briggs was asked about conflict of interest. No response was received prior to publication of this story.

David vs Goliath

When a $300 billion mining company files a lawsuit to silence a journalist and an incomeless man, Simon Turner, and bases it on the sworn word of its own lawyer, it creates a problem no amount of money can fix. On Friday afternoon Simon Turner put the issue before Judge Needham, who will hear the case.

Turner, who is self-represented, has been classed as Totally and Permanently Disabled since 2017, and has been sleeping on the floor of his mother’s garage, filed an interlocutory application asking the Federal Court to prevent BHP solicitor Minter Ellison partner Trent Forno and his firm from continuing to act on behalf of BHP in the case.

BHP’s suppression application is supported by an affidavit confirmed by Trent Forno on 6 May 2026. According to Turner’s application, the only paragraph in this affidavit that goes to the main question of the case is paragraph 19; Here, Mr. Forno states that, as a participant in a settlement conference held on June 7, 2024, to his knowledge, no one warned him that the conference would take place. recorded.

This conference, hosted on Microsoft Teams, is the heart of the dispute. According to court records, Tom Hunter-Leahy and Lachlan Apps (lawyers acting for Turner at the time), Sophie Croft and John Hickey (BHP), Trent Forno (Minter Ellison for BHP), Turner himself, and Senator Malcolm Roberts’ General Counsel Hugh Carter were present.

Simon Turner’s application argues that Trent Forno’s statement in paragraph 19 contradicts the contemporaneous minutes of that very conference. According to the filing, the transcript records the recording announced on its first page before Trent Forno’s initial contribution, and notes that Forno himself suggested “without prejudice” ground rules while the recording was in progress.

Whether this single paragraph is valid or not is now the central moot question of the case. Answering this means weighing the reliability of BHP’s own lawyer’s affidavit.

You cannot be a witness and prosecute the case

Mr Turner argues that BHP faces a problem that money cannot solve. His application cites rule 27 of the Australian Lawyers’ Code of Conduct 2012, which also deals with the position of a lawyer who is a witness and the Court’s long-standing power to supervise its own officers.

He relies on the leading authority, Kallinicos v Hunt, where the test is framed as whether a fair-minded and reasonably informed member of society would conclude that a lawyer should not proceed with the action in the proper administration of justice.

Allegedly, one person cannot simultaneously be the key witness in question, the firm’s partner on record, the author of letters to the judge, and the architect of the case.

The roles are incompatible.

It is noteworthy that Simon Turner’s application does not contain any allegations against Trent Forno personally. He says this is not an accusation, but structural. Initiating the lawsuit, basing it on Trent Forno’s affidavit, and making the events of June 7, 2024 a direct matter of discussion is the “inevitable consequence” of BHP’s own choice.

The application asks the Court to prevent Trent Forno from moving; restraining Minter Ellison; or, failing that, allowing the firm to continue if an independent attorney who had nothing to do with the May 6 affidavit takes over the case and Trent Forno recuses himself from the case altogether.

Turner said he gave Forno and Minter Ellison a chance to consider their positions before applying, and the application was made simply because the opportunity was not considered.

“He started it”

“He started it,” Mr. Turner said. “BHP chose to bring this case and they chose to base it on the statement of their own lawyer. You can’t start a fight with your own sworn evidence and then avoid being tested. I’m not making any allegations against Mr Forno personally. I’m saying he can’t be both a witness and a lawyer in the same case.

“That’s the rule and there’s a reason for it.”

Timing is important The application comes a week after BHP and MinterEllison unsuccessfully tried to urgently publicize the silencing case. Late on May 15, Judge Needham declined to list the matter as urgent and the matter proceeds as normal: an initial case management hearing in the Federal Court at 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 29.

Mr Turner had brought cross-claims against BHP and its labor hire associations on 13 May 2026, before BHP’s unsuccessful emergency bid.

Suppression efforts

This cross-claim includes, among other things, a claim of fraud against the Federal Court of Australia. BHP heralded an application to strike out the cross-claim through Trent Forno and a bid to strike out that claim by citing an earlier decision by Judge Needham in February.

Turner’s view, expressed in correspondence to the Court, is that the February decision never took into account the transcript of 7 June 2024 and therefore could not be used to close a cross-claim built upon it.

Beneath the procedural conflict lies the story this byline has followed since the case began: a worker who said he was employed by labor hire company Chandler Macleod but whose settlement deeds named a different entity, Ready Workforce; who said he was classified as an “office worker” earning about $28,000 a year after breaking his back in a coal mine; and a broader workforce that advocates say could run into the thousands and benefits could potentially run into the billions.

BHP would prefer the Court look at journalism. Simon Turner just asked the lawyer to look at it.

BHP NOW wanted us silenced. Federal Court said no

Michael West is the founding editor of Michael West Media. Westpub Pty Ltd is the Second Defendant in NSD 752 of 2026 in the Federal Court of Australia. This article reports the contents of an interim application filed by Mr Turner; The allegations described are those made in the application in question and have not been determined by the Court. Mr. Turner’s application states that he does not make any claims against Mr. Forno personally.