BHP has won sweeping suppression orders against coal miner Simon Turner after a court threw out 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, refusing him leave to replead his case and ordering that key court documents be removed from the public file.
In orders made on Friday, Justice Needham struck out Simon Turner’s originating application and statement of claim against the first respondent, labour-hire firm Chandler Macleod Group Limited, with no leave granted to replead.
The court also entered judgment in favour of BHP and its subsidiaries and corporate Commonwealth entity Coal LSL.
Turner, a former coal miner who broke his back while working at a BHP mine site, had been pursuing compensation and alleging unlawful conduct connected to his employment. He appeared in court as a self-represented litigant, facing teams of senior counsel and solicitors acting for the corporate respondents.
Speaking after the decision, Turner described the ruling as “a miscarriage of justice”.
“I plan to appeal this decision to the Full Bench, hopefully with a fully funded legal team,” he said.
“Everyone deserves their day in court. Crimes cannot be suppressed or redacted. The law applies equally to everyone.”
Justice Needham’s reasons will be published Monday.
Wild Accusations. BHP has even its own evidence muzzled by Court
Statement of claim removed as “abuse of process”
Justice Needham ordered that Turner’s statement of claim be removed from the court file, finding it contained material that was “an abuse of the processes of the Court”.
The originating application filed on 28 October 2025 is also to be removed and replaced with a redacted version, with paragraphs 8-12 under the heading “Details of Claim” excised by the court.
Broad interim suppression orders
The court also imposed sweeping interim suppression orders, pending the making of final suppression orders.
Until further order, publication and disclosure of the following documents is prohibited except to the court and the parties’ legal representatives:
- Turner’s statement of claim;
- his affidavit filed on 28 October 2025;
- the second, third and fourth respondents’ interlocutory application filed on 11 December 2025;
- the affidavit of BHP solicitor Trent Matthew Forno and a confidential exhibit;
- any outlines of submissions and evidence filed in respect of the suppression application; and
- pages 19–21 of the transcript of the 12 February 2026 hearing, which the court found disclose information covered by redactions to the originating application.
The BHP respondents have been directed to prepare draft orders reflecting the portion of the court’s reasons dealing with suppression, to be provided to Justice Needham’s chambers within 14 days. Final suppression orders will be made in chambers or on a date to be fixed.
Editor’s Note: the principles of ‘open justice’ – fairness, equality and access – have been sorely tested in this case. Besides the sweeping suppression orders granted to BHP and the four other respondents, BHP never delivered a defence.
Simon Turner could not afford to pay for the transcripts of his own proceedings and efforts by this publisher to gain access to the transcripts failed. The Federal Court has outsourced its transcription service to a Canadian company who charged $1,952.53 for the transcripts of the last hearing.
Yet even when MWM agreed to pay to access these ‘public documents’ relating to proceedings in ‘open court’, the documents were not forthcoming. BHP also had parts of its own case redacted.
This is hardly open justice; particularly in view of the legal might of the defendants. If Turner’s case is so unworthy then why is BHP demanding that the Court conceals it?