By -

Snapshot

  • In a recent Federal Court case involving wrongful dismissal, broad suppression orders were sought.
  • In the course of considering the application, Lee J focused on open justice and criticised the overuse of suppression orders.
  • The case is a reminder that, while confidentiality can be a critical part of settlement negotiations, it does not always outweigh the public’s right to transparency.

In the recent Federal Court case of Farrell v Super Retail Group Limited [2024] FCA 954 (‘Farrell’), Rebecca Farrell, a former Chief Legal Officer for Super Retail Group (‘SRG’), was dismissed after raising corporate governance and workplace safety concerns. She claimed her dismissal was retaliatory and sought specific performance of an alleged settlement agreement or damages for breach of contract.

After an unsuccessful mediation attempt, SRG made an ASX announcement on 26 April 2024, stating they expected two employees to file lawsuits claiming $30-50 million in damages. The announcement led to widespread media coverage, including allegations of ‘shake down’ tactics. Harmers Workplace Lawyers (‘Harmers’) (for Ms Farrell and another Ms Berczelly) responded with a public statement, claiming their clients had offered to settle for less than one-third of the announced amount.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more