Hardware boss taking on Bunnings in David versus Goliath court battle avoids $6million legal bill
David Woodman, a hardware store owner in Jimboomba, outer Brisbane, is fighting Bunnings in the Federal Court to stop the retail giant opening a store next to his own business. His family has been in the hardware trade for 90 years, and he operates two stores under licence from Mitre 10 Australia, arguing that a Bunnings warehouse up to eight times the size of his premises could put him out of business, despite several other Bunnings outlets already operating in the area.
Woodman has launched action under the Competition and Consumer Act, alleging anti-competitive conduct, and is seeking both damages and an injunction to block the store. In a significant early win, Justice Robert Bromwich granted him a No Adverse Costs Order, shielding him from potentially having to pay Bunnings' legal costs, estimated at more than $6 million, if he loses. The judge rejected Bunnings' argument that Woodman's finances were sufficient to cover such costs, ruling instead that the risk of a huge adverse costs order could unfairly deter him from pursuing the case at all. Woodman's lawyer, Michael Daniel, said the ruling was crucial to keeping the case alive, while Bunnings, owned by Wesfarmers, has engaged senior barrister Garry Rich SC and is expected to continue contesting the action.
- Hardware owner sues Bunnings to block a rival store next door.
- Court shields him from Bunnings' potential $6 million legal costs.
- Judge says cost risk could otherwise deter him pursuing the case.
New here? Start with this
David Woodman runs two hardware stores in Jimboomba, on Brisbane's outskirts, under licence from Mitre 10 Australia, continuing a family trade going back 90 years. He is challenging Bunnings, the hardware chain owned by Wesfarmers, in the Federal Court over its plan to build a much larger store next door, arguing this could threaten his livelihood even though other Bunnings stores already operate nearby.
The case centres on Australia's competition law, with Woodman alleging Bunnings' conduct is anti-competitive, and asking the court both for compensation and for an order stopping the new store from being built. Cases like this are often framed as a small business against a much larger corporate rival, given the size and resources of the two sides.
Legal costs are a significant factor in disputes of this kind, since the losing party can be ordered to cover the winner's costs, which in complex commercial litigation can run into the millions of dollars. That risk can discourage smaller parties from bringing or continuing a case against a much larger opponent, which is why court decisions about who bears those costs can shape whether a case proceeds at all.