Farrell v Super Retail Group Limited (Cross-claim)

In the matter of Farrell v Super Retail Group Limited, the cross-claimants, Ms Farrell and Ms Berczelly, sought to enjoin the solicitors for the first and second cross-respondents, Harmers Workplace Lawyers, from representing them in the proceeding. The dispute arose from allegations of bullying, victimisation, and adverse treatment at Super Retail Group (SRG), with Harmers Workplace Lawyers having issued a media statement concerning these allegations. The cross-claimants asserted that the solicitors had a financial and reputational interest in the proceeding, which could compromise their independence and objectivity.

The court was required to decide whether the solicitors' pecuniary and reputational interests constituted obstacles to the provision of legal services with the requisite degree of independence. This involved examining the nature of the court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain a solicitor from acting and whether such relief should be granted as a matter of discretion or evaluative normative assessment. The court considered the implications of the cross-claimants being deprived of their choice of legal representation and whether the proper administration of justice necessitated an order.

The court reasoned that the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to restrain a solicitor from acting is better characterised as an evaluative normative assessment, rather than a discretionary decision. The court found that while the solicitors' interests might raise concerns, they did not reach the level of satisfaction required to conclude that the proper administration of justice mandated restraining the solicitors from acting. The court further noted that the media statement was not an emergency disclosure under the Corporations Act and that the allegations were not substantiated by SRG’s investigations. Therefore, the court dismissed the cross-claim.

The court ordered that the cross-claim seeking to restrain the solicitors from representing the cross-claimants be dismissed and directed the parties to file and serve any submissions in relation to the costs of and incidental to the cross-claim by 9 December 2024.