AUS
NZ
UK
CA
USA
FRA
GER
ESP
ITA
NLD
PRT
SWE
GRC
IND
POL
BRA
ZAF
RUS
CHN
UAE
Highlights:
- Two former Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL) lawyers are seeking to appeal a court decision dismissing their payout claim.
- The Federal Court previously ruled against their claim, stating no enforceable oral contract was established.
- Super Retail Group denies allegations of reneging on a payout agreement.
Former Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL) legal executives, Rebecca Farrell and Amelia Berczelly, have initiated an appeal after the Federal Court dismissed their claim for an alleged payout agreement. The case, which stems from allegations of workplace misconduct and a failed settlement agreement, has now moved to the next legal phase as the former employees challenge the initial ruling.
Justice Michael Lee previously rejected the claim, concluding that no enforceable oral contract existed regarding the alleged payout. The ruling was a significant setback for the former in-house lawyers, who contended that Super Retail Group had agreed to a financial settlement following their departure from the company.
Farrell and Berczelly had accused Super Retail Group of fostering a culture of workplace bullying, which they claimed led to their dismissal. They also asserted that the company had initially agreed to a settlement before later reneging on the arrangement. The legal battle, which has been ongoing for months, now hinges on whether the appellate court will grant leave to appeal the prior decision.
Super Retail Group has consistently denied the allegations put forward by the former employees. The company maintains that no binding payout agreement was ever established and that the claims made against it are unsubstantiated. The appeal process will determine whether the former employees can challenge the previous ruling or if the matter remains settled as per the initial judgment.
This legal dispute adds to the challenges facing Super Retail Group, a major player in the retail sector operating brands such as Supercheap Auto, Rebel, BCF, and Macpac. While the company continues its operations across Australia and New Zealand, the outcome of this legal battle could set a precedent for similar corporate disputes regarding workplace claims and settlement agreements.
