Super Retail begins confidentiality appeal in employee dispute
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: Supercheap Auto and Rebel retail operator Super Retail Group has begun efforts to keep details of an alleged settlement agreement with its former chief legal officer Rebecca Farrell under wraps.
The context: The appeal follows a decision by Federal Court of Australia Judge Michael Lee, who is presiding over Farrell's dispute with Super Retail and dismissed a suppression order application by the company of the alleged agreement. However, the company has argued that there is no agreement.
Harmers Workplace Lawyers is acting for Farrell in the workplace dispute. Federal Court of Australia Judge Michael Wigney, who is presiding over the application to appeal, has reserved a decision as to whether he will hear the appeal, or if it will go to a full court panel of three judges.
Appearing on behalf of Super Retail before Wigney in the Federal Court in Sydney this morning, barrister Zoë Hillman said Farrell asserts the existence of an alleged agreement with the company that included a requirement and obligation for her to maintain confidentiality.
While the company is arguing there is no agreement is in place, Hillman said her client would lose its confidentiality claim if the court finds "SRG is acting inconsistently with the agreement".
Nine Entertainment and Fairfax Media have both intervened in the appeal matter to argue that Lee was correct in his initial decision to dismiss Super Retail's suppression application.
Super Retail confirmed in an ASX announcement in July that it was facing the workplace lawsuit, having flagged in April that it was anticipating a lawsuit from two employees.
Only Farrell has taken legal action over her dismissal, with the case including allegations of an affair between Super Retail chief executive Anthony Heraghty, who is named in the case, and his former head of human resources.
What they said: "The nub of the problem is that Ms Farrell comes to the court and says, 'I require performance of the agreement but I will not conduct my own performance and I can never perform my obligations under that agreement'," Hillman said.
"To seek equity where you yourself can't do equity because you can't maintain your part of the bargain — that creates the real conundrum that SRG faces. [It] creates fundamental prejudice that they will suffer, irrespective of outcome."
The source: Federal Court
