After legal arguments and lawyers stepping down, the Super Retail case has wrapped up

The Super Retail court case has ended on a day in which senior counsel for the whistleblowers sensationally stepped down in the morning and lawyers argued over whether a deal was struck.

Former Super Retail executives turned whistleblowers Rebecca Farrell and Amelia Berczelly. Picture: Monique Harmer

The court case between Super Retail Group and its two sacked executives-turned-whistleblowers, Rebecca Farrell and Amelia Berczelly, has ended after three days of hearings, with the final day seeing the sensational exit of the women’s senior legal counsel due to ethical concerns and Ms Farrell giving evidence by video link.

In her brief evidence Ms Farrell described how she feared Super Retail would try to put something “cute” in a final agreement trying to be sealed between the parties but which eventually failed and is now the centre of the court dispute.

In closing submissions from lawyers for Super Retail, which owns chains Supercheap Auto and Rebel, and counsel for Ms Farrell and Ms Berczelly, both sides argued before Justice Michael Lee about whether a deal was struck between the retailer and its sacked executives and if that deal should be enforced.

The case came after both whistleblowers were sacked by Super Retail in May, and in the wake of them making serious allegations of improper workplace behaviour at the retailer including an alleged illicit affair between chief executive Anthony Heraghty and then head of human resources Jane Kelly.

The case took an unexpected turn at the start of the third and final day of hearings when senior counsel for Ms Farrell and Ms Berczelly, Shane Prince SC, sensationally stepped down from the court case citing the disclosure of a privileged file note and conversation during cross-examination of a witness on Wednesday.

“There was some cross-examination which led to the disclosure or waiver of a file note that was otherwise a privileged conversation which contained statements attributable to me in dot point form,” Mr Prince told Justice Lee in the Federal Court.

This evidence was likely to be used by opposing counsel in their defence of Super Retail. Those comments relating to the file note were the subject of cross-examination of Michael Harmer on Wednesday by Mr Prince. Mr Harmer is the chair of Harmers Workplace Lawyers which is defending the Super Retail sacked executives.

Mr Prince asked questions of Mr Harmer as part of his defence of Ms Farrell and Ms Berczelly in their case against Super Retail where they claim a settlement agreement was reached in May but Super Retail reneged on the deal.

Mr Prince told Justice Lee he had taken advice overnight and that while he “profoundly disagreed” about how Super Retail’s lawyers would use that evidence he couldn’t argue the point to Justice Lee “in a disinterested way” because it would mean he would be defending his own position.

“I feel that I am not in an ethical position to continue to appear and that I must withdraw,” he said.

Later Ms Farrell gave evidence via video link, telling the court she was speaking from a relative’s house in Melbourne. The court was told on Tuesday that she and Ms Berczelly had recently been hospitalised.

Cross-examined on Thursday morning by Super Retail counsel John Sheahan, KC, Ms Farrell told the court about a series of meetings with her lawyers over the weekend of May 4 and 5 to discuss a possible settlement with Super Retail.

She said during the settlement talks on that weekend there was a fear Super Retail could put something “cute” into the final agreement, but she did not explain further what she meant by that.

The hearings have ended and a judgment is expected soon.

*The print version of this article in some metro publications incorrectly reported that Super Retail Group’s legal representative stood down from the case due to ethical concerns. It was Shane Prince SC, senior counsel for the whistleblowers, who stood aside.