Ever argued over a bill? This couple did—and ended up buried under mattresses...literally!

When Laura and Jarrod Maultby questioned a $514 bill for removing some rotted wood from their Melbourne home, they never imagined it would end with 26 filthy mattresses blocking their driveway.

What began as a simple complaint spiralled into a nightmare of legal threats, court battles, and crushing financial strain.

Now, their story is sparking outrage—and a warning for every Australian consumer who’s ever ticked ‘I agree’ without reading the fine print.

When the Langwarrin couple disputed their bill with waste removal company Junk.com.au, they had no idea the business’s terms and conditions allowed for something as extreme as dumping waste on their property.

The clause stated: ‘In the event of non-payment, the client expressly provides JUNK Group with the right to... unload either the clients waste collected or the equivalent volume of waste to the property.’

For the Maultbys, that obscure line of text became the foundation of their ordeal.

Laura Maultby called the terms ‘unreasonable expectations’ and said she was ‘shocked’ when she discovered the pile of mattresses outside their home.

Junk.com.au’s owner, Richard Furnari, defended the move, arguing the couple had agreed to those conditions when they booked the service.

What followed was a consumer dispute that turned into a full-blown legal war.

After Laura shared her experience on social media—posting negative reviews about the company—Junk.com.au struck back with multiple lawsuits.

The business filed cases in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), the Queensland District Court, and the Supreme Court of Victoria.

They claimed the family’s online reviews had ‘disparaged’ the business and caused weekly revenue to fall by more than $25,000.

Court documents allege the couple wrote six ‘false’ reviews, including claims that the business ‘rips and scams its customers’ and ‘charges more than its quotes.’

In a rare show of judicial restraint, two courts have since pushed back against what appeared to be legal intimidation.

The Queensland District Court dismissed one of the cases, while VCAT refused to hear duplicate actions—suggesting the company was attempting to overwhelm the Maultbys through legal pressure.

‘We’ve had a lot of support from our community and now two courts have told them there is a more appropriate forum,’ Laura said.

‘It’s great that VCAT are pushing back against duplicated legal actions and they won’t allow Junk to pursue us in multiple courts.’

But despite these small wins, the family’s Supreme Court battle remains ongoing—and the financial toll is devastating.

The Maultbys have already spent more than $200,000 defending themselves.

Laura said the process had been ‘a huge toll on our young family, both emotionally and financially.’

They launched a GoFundMe campaign hoping to raise $100,000 but have only managed to gather just over $20,000.

With legal costs still mounting, they’re now considering selling their mortgaged home simply to stay in the fight.

‘We are now facing the heartbreaking prospect of selling our already mortgaged home simply to defend ourselves,’ Laura said.

Their case has struck a nerve with consumer advocates, who say it highlights how businesses can weaponise legal systems to silence legitimate complaints.

Experts warn that ‘lawfare’—the use of aggressive, multi-jurisdictional legal tactics—can discourage consumers from speaking up about poor service.

It’s a growing concern in Australia, where reviews and social media posts have become an essential part of how people choose who to trust.

The Maultby case also raises questions about the fairness of contract terms that give one party extreme power.

Under Australian Consumer Law, terms can be declared ‘unfair’ if they create a significant imbalance between parties’ rights and obligations.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has specifically targeted clauses that let companies avoid obligations, change terms without notice, or impose penalties that would be considered unreasonable.

A clause allowing a company to dump mattresses on a customer’s property would almost certainly face scrutiny under these provisions.

Initially, Richard Furnari suggested Junk.com.au would collect the mattresses ‘to avoid dispute with the customer’ and instead pursue payment through legal means.

But the company’s decision to launch cases across three courts painted a very different picture.

‘This isn’t just about us, it’s about anyone who has ever tried to speak up before,’ Laura said.

Her words have turned their personal battle into a public cause, with many Australians questioning how easily an online review can become a legal weapon.

The Supreme Court case continues, and the Maultbys’ future remains uncertain.

Their ordeal serves as a chilling reminder that even a small act of consumer defiance—like questioning a bill—can spiral into a costly fight for justice.

The Maultbys’ experience isn’t the only case where ordinary people have felt powerless against unfair or confusing contract terms.

In another troubling story, residents found themselves facing unexpected charges buried deep within the fine print of their agreements.

It’s a reminder that hidden clauses can appear anywhere—even in places we trust to feel like home.

Read more: Retirement villages accused of gouging seniors after billing exorbitant fees: ‘It’s grossly unfair’

Have you ever faced intimidation tactics after leaving a negative review?