Login
Details of alleged settlement for ousted chief legal counsel to stay secret
A chief legal counsel ousted from Super Retail Group has failed to convince a court to toss out a suppression order that she claimed has prevented her from speaking out against a defamatory narrative.
Naomi Neilson
Rebecca Farrell, former chief legal counsel of Super Retail Group – the company behind brands like Rebel and Supercheap Auto – unsuccessfully applied to have a suppression order lifted so details of an alleged settlement agreement could be aired in public.
Farrell, along with company secretary Amelia Berczelly, entered into without prejudice discussions with Super Retail Group over allegations of workplace harassment and bullying, poor corporate governance, and a secret relationship between key personnel.
Whether a settlement agreement ever existed has yet to be decided.
In an application for leave to appeal suppression and non-publication orders – which covered certain aspects of the supposed settlement discussions – Farrell and Berczelly said Super Retail Group has “been actively propagating in the media a version of events about the settlement discussions” that took place after they were both ousted.
They claimed their former employer’s version of events reported by media has been defamatory and the suppression orders have limited Farrell’s ability to make any public response.
Counsel for Farrell told the Federal Court the orders were a substantial injustice “in circumstances where Farrell was unable to speak publicly about matters which [Super Retail Group] had addressed prior to the making of the suppression orders”.
Justice Yaseen Shariff was not persuaded any weight should be given to this accusation, particularly because Farrell was unable to point to any evidence that suggested public statements made by Super Retail Group had disclosed any part of the suppressed information.
“If the statements made by the SRG parties have been defamatory or otherwise unlawful, it is a matter for Farrell to exercise any right that she may have. These matters did not rise beyond bare assertion,” Justice Shariff said.
The court was also told the suppression orders meant substantive reasons would be published in a redacted form, that steps would need to be taken to prevent disclosure of suppressed information during the substantive proceedings, and participants would be permanently restrained from discussing certain information.
As for the company secretaries’ concerns that the suppression orders would restrict how a participant canvasses certain submissions in the substantive proceedings, Justice Shariff said they were “represented by experienced legal practitioners”, who he had no doubt would be able to comply with any part of the suppression orders.
Further, if Farrell wished to discuss the suppressed information with another person, Justice Shariff said she could apply for a variation.
Media interveners appearing for Fairfax Media and Nationwide News alleged that by allowing certain information to be suppressed and others not, the orders were a form of “cherry-picking”.
They also claimed it would be an injustice to the public at large.
Justice Shariff was not convinced.
In particular, Justice Shariff said it was not accurate to characterise the suppression orders as “foreclosing any party from being heard in the future as to whether they should be varied or set aside”.
Dealing specifically with the interveners, Justice Shariff said there was no authority to support the proposition of a substantial injustice to the public. He added it was open to these organisations to seek to be heard in the substantive proceedings on this issue.
The case is Farrell v Super Retail Group Limited (Application for Leave to Appeal Suppression Orders) [2025] FCA 170.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
