A small town retailer is battling it out with Australia’s biggest hardware giant in the Federal Court to stop Bunnings from opening up literally next door to his Mitre 10 franchise.
David Woodman’s story was detailed by ABC’s Four Corners last year, with the regional Queensland retailer airing concerns about competition in the hardware sector.
Now, Mr Woodman is trying to use the Competition and Consumer Act to stop Bunnings from opening its site in the regional Queensland town of Jimboomba.
“It’s certainly not without interest,” the presiding Justice Robert Bromwich noted today.
What is the basis of the case?
Mr Woodman’s family has been in the hardware business for 90 years.
He bought the store in Jimboomba with his brother and father in 2018 under a franchise agreement with Metcash, the second-largest hardware retailer in Australia after Bunnings.
The large site next to David Woodman’s hardware store where a Bunnings Warehouse will be built. (ABC Four Corners: Ryan Sheridan)
Bunnings purchased the vacant lot next door one year later in 2019 and was later approved for a warehouse eight times larger than Mitre 10 Jimboomba.
Mr Woodman’s case argues this will put him out of business, saying:
As a result of Bunnings’s conduct, Woodman abandoned plans to expand the size and product range of Mitre 10 Jimboomba, because once Bunnings Warehouse opens at the Jimboomba Site, it is commercially likely that Mitre 10 Jimboomba will become non-viable within the short to medium term and therefore would have to close.
“Bunnings’s conduct has or is likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the local retail hardware market around Jimboomba,” it adds.
Mr Woodman is seeking damages for losses and is ultimately seeking an injunction to stop Bunnings from opening its store.
Bunnings has long defended itself against anti-competitive concerns. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)
In the Federal Court today, Mr Woodman’s lawyers sought a rare order that could allow Mr Woodman’s family-owned company to take on the retail giant, without the threat of paying the company’s legal bill if he loses. The court heard the figure could reach into the millions.
Bunnings is owned by Wesfarmers, with its more than 300 stores raking in almost $20 billion in revenue for the ASX-listed giant in 2025 alone. Wesfarmers also owns Kmart and Officeworks.
“Bunnings has a substantial degree of market power,” Mr Woodman’s barrister Peter Strickland told the court, noting the retailer’s “exclusive supplier arrangements” and “high barriers to entry”.
What is Bunnings’s defence?
Bunnings declined to comment while the matter was before the court.
Yet the company has long defended itself against anti-competitive concerns and previously told the ABC that the Jimboomba store would bring more choice and competition to the area and jobs. It also argues that Metcash has exclusive ranges and a significant store network of company-owned and franchise Mitre 10 stores.
“Bunnings’s decision to open a store in Jimboomba is part of a long-term plan to expand in growing areas,” the company said last year.
“It is never about eliminating competition, rather we enhance competition as it’s good for consumers.”
Bunnings is owned by Wesfarmers, with more than 300 stores. (ABC News: Madigan Landry )
Bunnings has brought in a high-profile lawyer to argue its case, Garry Rich SC.
The barrister recently won a bombshell case against another high-profile retailer, Coles, on behalf of the competition regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
On Friday, he argued Mr Woodman’s case against Bunnings was based on “flimsy” assertions about his expansion plans and whether Bunnings’s opening would actually shut down his store.
“There is nothing anti-competitive or unlawful of Bunnings depriving Mitre 10 of sales. That is the essence of competition. That’s what competitors do,” he said.
“This is competition. We want to take as many sales as we can.
“If [customers] wanted Mitre 10’s products, they wouldn’t go to Bunnings.”
David Woodman’s barrister told the court Bunnings “has a substantial degree of market power”. (ABC News: Madigan Landry )
At one point, the hearing heard comparisons of hardware retail competition to Apple versus Nokia, with mentions of the latter’s largely defunct 3310 handset.
On that front, Justice Bromwich noted the case was about “prediction” and the possibility of “perhaps knocking somebody out”.
“That’s what happened to Blackberry,” he noted.
After six hours of hearings, Justice Bromwich reserved his judgement on whether Mr Woodman could be granted an order that could allow him to not pay Bunnings’s costs if he loses his case.
A decision is expected by early July.
