Super Retail's workplace lawsuit gets underway
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: Super Retail Group's workplace lawsuit brought by its former chief legal officer Rebecca Farrell kicked off with the structure of an alleged settlement agreement the focus of today's hearing.
The context: Harmers Workplace Lawyers is acting for Farrell in the workplace dispute, with Harmers chair and senior team leader Michael Harmer the first witness to be cross-examined in the case. Harmer led Farrell's settlement talks and described it as a package agreement.
Harmer told the court the agreement, which Super Retail denies existed, included "standard" Super Retail Group terms. Farrell said Harmer orally agreed to the package deal, only for his team to later find the alleged agreement went "over and above" what they had previously anticipated from the company's lawyers at Allens.
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.
The existence of a deal between Super Retail and Farrell is a central element of dispute in the case. The company argues no such agreement exists, while Farrell's lawyers argue there was an agreement with which the company has failed to comply.
The precise details of any alleged agreement have been suppressed by the court.
Harmer faced a lengthy round of questions on Tuesday afternoon from Super Retail's barrister John Sheahan KC, who put to Harmer he had no instruction to enter a binding oral agreement with the company's lawyers at Allens.
What they said: "To the contrary, I received instructions that would allow me to take up the board’s framework, which included the construction of the standard deed," Harmer said.
"The role of the deed was to embody the agreement reached in standard terms. What we apprehended we received was a deed in non-standard terms over and above the agreement."
The source: Federal Court
