‘Distress, anxiety and disappointment’: Wild reason man tried to sue Bunnings

A man has tried to sue Bunnings for damages, including “distress, anxiety”, after a weedkiller decimated his beloved lawn.

EXCLUSIVE

A man has launched legal action against Bunnings after a weed killer product he bought allegedly “damaged” his lawn, causing him “distress, anxiety and disappointment”.

Glenwood man Sanjeev Khanna told the NSW Supreme Court this week he went to a Bunnings store in Sydney’s northwest in August 2023 and was told by a worker that the weedkiller would not kill his lawn.

He claims $5,000 for ”liability” incurred by his landlord to fix the lawn and $15,000 for “distress, anxiety and disappointment following the damage”.

The Supreme Court dismissed the amended summons, finding no error of law or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

Bunnings has declined to comment on the case.

The weedkiller used by the Glenwood man. Picture: Bunnings

The product was purchased at the Marsden Park store.

Mr Khanna told the court the Bunnings employee had advised him the product would not harm the grass and that the product’s labelling was also “misleading”.

The weedkiller in question – Garden Basic Weed Kill Concentrate – states on the Bunnings website that it is a “herbicide for the control of weeds and grasses in garden beds, rockeries, driveways, along fence lines and around buildings”.

“Kills weeds and grasses. Destroys foliage and roots. Non-residual,” the product description states on the Bunnings website.

Mr Khanna brought the matter to the NSW Supreme Court after the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) dismissed the case due to a lack of merit.

NCAT found that the weedkiller label was “clear that it will kill a broad range of plants including a number of different types of grass”.

The tribunal also found Mr Khanna’s recount of his conversation with the Bunnings worker prior to purchasing the weedkiller was “inconsistent and not adequately clear”.

“In cross-examination, he could not offer specific details about the discussion or the identity of the person he spoke to,” the tribunal said.

Mr Khanna, who was renting at the time, told the NSW Supreme Court he had suffered “significant hardship” after compensating the landlord for the damages to the lawn as he is the recipient of a disability pension.

In the appeal, Supreme Court Appeal Judge Richard McHugh SC dismissed the matter, finding there was no “error of law” in NCAT’s finding.

Judge McHugh also ordered Khanna to pay Bunnings’ legal costs.