Farrell, represented by Harmers Workplace Lawyers, said she entered into the enforceable agreement on Monday, 6 May, just three days after she was terminated. In response, SRG claimed the settlement was reached “in principle” only and was not binding.

In his evidence in chief on Tuesday (10 December), Michael Harmer, founder of Harmers Workplace Lawyers, claimed that in reaching the agreement, the communications between himself and SRG’s solicitor, Sonia Millen, became combative over those three days.

Harmer alleged that after he proposed a particular offer on behalf of the company secretaries, Millen responded with: “That’s disgusting.”

VIEW ALL

He also claimed Millen became upset when Harmers organised for the counsel of both parties to communicate about the settlement because she allegedly did not believe it would be of any value.

In response to questioning by Shane Prince SC, counsel for the company secretaries, Harmer added he was led to believe an offer put forward by Millen was from the board and would be the “last”.

In opening submissions, Prince told Justice Michael Lee his clients accepted the offer on the belief SRG would not budge any further. In calls and an email, Prince added the parties made what could be described as a “quintessential reference to the solicitor’s handshake”.

John Sheahan KC, for SRG, questioned Harmer on why he would believe the agreement had been entered into on the Monday when he had written to Millen that it would be “subject to deed”.

Harmer claimed the deed was standard and “therefore a formality”.

He also claimed that because Farrell and Berczelly were company secretaries, they would both be familiar with standard deeds and understood they would be locked into those terms.

Sheahan also took issue with Harmer’s acceptance of the offer without allegedly taking instructions from his clients, but Harmer insisted he had the authority to accept the board’s offer.

At one point, Sheahan accused Harmer of doing “nothing more than advocating for your client and yourself” in the witness box.

“No, I am trying to give my honest understanding, and if that comes across as advocacy, so bet it,” Harmer said in reply.

Back in October, SRG tried to restrain Harmers Workplace Lawyers from representing Farrell and Berczelly because of an alleged conflict.

Justice Lee rejected this argument, telling SRG he was “not prepared to make an order” to restrain the firm, particularly after the company secretaries had received independent advice and were confident about remaining with the firm for the proceedings.

Another pre-trial argument was for the suppression order over the settlement agreement, with SRG claiming it would be embarrassed if certain details about the negotiations were made public.

Justice Lee found the attempts to shield media were done “wrongly” and removed the suppression but agreed to make a temporary order while SRG appeals his decision.

The hearing will continue on Wednesday.

Published at 3.30pm on Tuesday, 10 December:

‘Solicitor’s handshake’ legally bound Super Retail Group with company secretaries, court told

In opening submissions, counsel for Super Retail Group’s ousted company secretaries told the Federal Court the two parties essentially had a “solicitor’s handshake” to enforce an alleged settlement agreement.

A supposed settlement agreement between Super Retail Group (SRG), its former head of legal Rebecca Farrell, and colleague Amelia Berczelly was reached after several calls and an email, which counsel for the women submitted was a “quintessential reference to the solicitor’s handshake”.

In the hearing before the Federal Court, Farrell and Berczelly claimed the alleged settlement was reached on 6 May this year, just days after the former was terminated from SRG. The proceedings, filed by Harmers Workplace Lawyers, seek to enforce that settlement.

In his opening submissions, Shane Prince SC, counsel for the company secretaries, said there were “extensive negotiations” over the first weekend of May to reach the alleged settlement.

On Sunday, 5 May, the SRG parties “had been pushed as far as they could go and would go no further”, and “clearly defined and well-considered components in the offer” were hardened on the Monday.

“What ultimately would happen, we would say, is on 6 May, having ascertained SRG would never budge on particular issues, [Farrell and Berczelly] were faced with the choice of take it or not, and they took it.

“It is the quintessential reference to the solicitor’s handshake and the requirement to honour a solicitor’s handshake. Even though it occurred by email, it had that same effect,” Prince alleged.

Prince said it was a “really straightforward case”.

In SRG’s case, the negotiations that came afterwards voided any alleged agreement being entered, but Prince said this was a “distraction”.

“The fact that parties seeking to get more after a deal is entered doesn’t mean a deal wasn’t concluded,” Prince said.

Farrell alleged she was pushed out of the retail group for raising concerns about SRG’s workplace, including the relationship between chief executive Anthony Heraghty and the chief human resources officer.

The contents of the alleged settlement have been kept in the dark, with SRG securing an interim suppression order over it and its negotiations with Harmers despite an objection from Justice Michael Lee.

Back in August, Justice Lee found the order was “unnecessary” and many details were “out of the bag”. The court resolved to lift the suppression, but an interim order was placed on it pending SRG’s appeal.

More to come.