Details of an alleged settlement offer will remain suppressed

Key details of an alleged settlement offer made by Super Retail to its two former female executives turned whistleblowers will remain suppressed as a court ruled in favour of the scandal-ridden retailer.

Former Super Retail executives Rebecca Farrell (L) and Amelia Berczelly (R) pictured walking to Federal Court in Sydney last year. Picture: Monique Harmer

Super Retail Group, the retailer that owns Rebel and Supercheap Auto, has succeeded in a court battle to keep details of an alleged settlement offer made to two of its most senior female executives suppressed.

The Federal Court on Tuesday rejected a bid by former Super Retail chief legal officer Rebecca Farrell to appeal a standing suppression order, which means key financial aspects of a claimed settlement offer will be kept hidden indefinitely.

“I am not satisfied that it has been established that the applicant (Ms Farrell) will suffer substantial injustice if leave to appeal is not granted,” Justice Yaseen Shariff wrote in his judgment.

“Thus, even assuming (in Ms Farrell’s favour) that the suppression orders were wrong, the absence of substantial injustice is a sufficient reason to refuse the grant of leave.”

Super Retail Group CEO Anthony Heraghty (L) and former executives and whistleblowers Rebecca Farrell (C) and Amelia Berczelly (R). Digital image.

The $3bn Super Retail business, owner of Rebel, Supercheap Auto, Macpac and BCF, has fought doggedly since last year to keep certain parts of an alleged settlement offer between it, Ms Farrell and its former company secretary Amelia Berczelly suppressed from public view.

Ms Farrell and Ms Berczelly were both sacked by Super Retail last year. Once the most senior female executives at the company, they turned whistleblowers making a number of scandalous allegations including an alleged affair between chief executive Anthony Heraghty and former HR boss Jane Kelly, and the misuse of the company travel budget. Executives and board members at Super Retail were alleged to have intervened to suppress anonymous whistleblower complaints.

Super Retail has consistently denied all the allegations, including any improper relationship between Mr Heraghty and Ms Kelly.

In December, Justice Michael Lee of the Federal Court ruled against Ms Farrell and Ms Berczelly in their case to enforce the alleged settlement offer made by Super Retail, leaving the supression orders in place.

Last week, John Hyde Page, appearing for Ms Farrell, said in his submission Super Retail and its management were fighting to hide the company’s “dirty laundry” from public view.

“The only thing one is left with is a large corporation and a management team that wants the court to hide its dirty laundry. Suppression orders do not get made in those sorts of circumstances,” he told the court last week.

Super Retail CEO Anthony Heraghty, in a Rebel store. Picture: Jane Dempster/The Australian.

But Justice Shariff rejected Ms Farrell’s argument that lifting the suppression order would enable her to publicly fight Super Retail’s alleged “defamatory” statements about her version of events, and that there was no evidence that Super Retail had through the media disclosed some of the suppressed material to damage her. He called this a “bare assertion”.

“Nor am I persuaded that any weight is to be given to Ms Farrell’s assertions that the Super Retail parties have made public and defamatory statements about her, including as to the content and nature of the settlement discussions that are the subject of the suppression orders.

“Ms Farrell was unable to point to any evidence that any public statements made by the Super Retail parties had disclosed any of the suppressed information. If the statements made by the Super Retail parties have been defamatory or otherwise unlawful, it is a matter for Ms Farrell to exercise any rights that she may have.”

Ms Farrell and Ms Berczelly’s main case against Super Retail where they have alleged workplace bullying, harassment, the undisclosed executive romance and corporate governance breaches will begin early in 2026.

Originally published as Details of an alleged settlement offer will remain suppressed