A major supermarket chain is challenging a watchdog’s new powers after a judge hears arguments related to a proposed store in a regional city. According to court proceedings reported by both outlets, a decision to block the retailer from opening the store relied on “theories of harm.” The judge is being told that these theories were not substantiated. The case focuses on whether the watchdog can prevent new supermarket development based on anticipated impacts, and how the evidence supporting those concerns is assessed in court. While the reports summarise that the applicant’s position is that the alleged harms were not proven, the outlets do not provide detailed breakdowns of the specific harms claimed, the regulator’s reasoning, or the retailer’s proposed plan for the new store. The proceedings centre on the contest over the watchdog’s authority and the evidentiary basis for blocking the store, with the court reviewing the circumstances and justification for the intervention under the regulator’s expanded powers.