When Steven Willmott applied for a job as a console operator at a Woolworths service station in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland town of Beerwah in December, 2013, he objected to the online application portal's demands that his birth certificate, passport and driver's licence be included as part of the application.

Without the addition of the documents, as well as requisite fields demanding his date-of-birth, gender and right to work in Australia status, he could not continue the application.

So he abandoned it.

"My main concern was identity theft. They wanted all this information just to apply and you could not apply unless you handed it over," he said.

"If people get your personal information they can open up phone contracts, buy cars, get loans, they have the perfect storm of everything, your signature, your date of birth, your parents' names, absolutely everything anyone would ever need to steal your identity."

Barring the application without the documents being provided was, he believed, a highly discriminatory practice on Woolworths' part.

Last month, after a year-long legal tussle, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal agreed.

Mr Willmott, who remains unemployed, took Woolworths to the tribunal accusing them of breaching the anti-discrimination act.

At the September hearing, he represented himself.

Acting on behalf of Woolworths was a team of, presumably well-paid, barristers.

There were two constitutional challenges. Even Federal Attorney-General George Brandis was consulted.

Yet, the middle-aged, aspiring service station console operator emerged triumphant.

Last month, senior tribunal member Richard Oliver ruled Woolworths' job application practices were indeed discriminatory.

He noted that prior to the hearing the company had changed its application requirements on the very points Mr Willmott had alleged discrimination over.

He awarded the Sunshine Coast man the nominal compensation amount of $5000, something that opened him to much derision when Fairfax Media reported the outcome of the hearing on Wednesday.

But, he said, it was not the quest for money that fuelled his action.

"People are saying I did it for $5000, that's so stupid, it's beyond even arguing," he said.

"People should not hand over this sort of information so freely.

"Companies should not be putting jobseekers in that position.

"Have a look at who has been hacked into: eBay, Sony banking institutions and Woolworths will not tell me if this information is being held overseas."

Mr Willmott's chief concern, he told Fairfax Media on Wednesday, was exactly where Woolworths would store his and every other jobseeker's sensitive and confidential information and how secure it would be, questions he said representatives of the supermarket chain would not answer.

It is a concern every jobseeker should have, he said.

"For people to say I have done it for $5000 is ridiculous, I m doing it on behalf of the people," he said.

"If you have your identity stolen it can costs tens of thousands of dollars to get it back.

"If everybody has to hand over this information with every job you apply for, all that information is going out to all these employers and they have everything on you.

"The only thing they don't have is your medical records.

"But you have no-one to contact at Woolworths, it's either you do it or you don't apply for the job."

Mr Willmott declined to provide a photograph, despairing that the publicity surrounding his tribunal victory would further damage his employment chances.

As for beating the supermarket giant's polished legal team, he was ambivalent.

"It's really a bit of an anti-climax after a year," he said.

"It's not a fair playing ground, the court should be open to everyone to go and have a fair crack.

"For Woolworths to bring in this firepower, the case must have cost them a packet to defend."

Woolworths did not respond to Fairfax Media's request for comment.