The franchise operator of two Mitre 10 locations has won a key cost-protection lawsuit against Bunnings, ahead of a potential suit against the hardware giant’s expansion.
This dispute centres on the plans for a new, 15,000sqm Bunnings Warehouse site next door to Woodman Beenleigh’s Mitre 10 site in Jimboomba, Queensland.
Woodman Beenleigh argues that the opening could violate part of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) because the Bunnings Warehouse site would have the effect, or likely effect, of substantially lessening competition by deterring Woodman’s store expansion and forcing its eventual exit.
The applicant began proceedings for a “no adverse cost order” (Naco) on August 27, 2025, to shield itself from incurring costs in the event of an expensive lawsuit. Bunnings opposed this order being granted.
But the Federal Court of Australia found that the financial disparity between Bunnings and the family-owned franchise operator was a significant factor in the granting of the NCO.
“It is chalk and cheese,” said Justice Robert Bromwich in his decision. “Sensibly, Bunnings does not dispute that there is a large disparity between their financial positions.”
“The second question is whether the obvious and very substantial financial disparity described above is such that the possibility of an adverse costs order might deter Woodman from pursuing the action in the sense that I have identified above. This is the aspect of the threshold which was contested by Bunnings.”
Justice Bromwich found this second point the decisive factor, acknowledging that while Woodman could pay its own legal costs if ordered to by Bunnings, the prospect of this is likely to deter it from pursuing fair legal proceedings.
Bunnings told ABC News that it believes an opening in Jimboomba would bring more choice, competition and employment to the local area.
This article was first published on Inside Retail.
