Federal Court of Australia
Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1407
File number: VID 996 of 2016 Judgment of: KERR J Date of judgment: 2 October 2020 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – general protections – adverse action contrary to Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 340 – where Applicant’s employment terminated after he made seven complaints regarding bullying – operation of statutory presumption in s 361(1) – Respondents found not to have discharged onus of proving that complaints, being exercises of the Applicant’s workplace rights, not a reason for termination of his employment – adverse action established
INDUSTRIAL LAW – remedies – adverse action – pecuniary penalties awarded and ordered to be paid to the Applicant pursuant to Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 546
INDUSTRIAL LAW – remedies – adverse action – where psychiatric evidence established the Respondents’ conduct had caused a significant aggravation of the Applicant’s pre-existing depressive disorder, which had resulted in the Applicant losing capacity to work – where psychiatric evidence also established a poor prognosis for the Applicant ever again being able to work in roles for which he would otherwise be qualified – compensation awarded to Applicant pursuant to Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 545 for economic loss and as compensation analogous to general damages
CONTRACTS – where Applicant alleged breach of contract of employment by reason of non-payment of certain incentives due to him since 2009 – where contract had been varied on several occasions – consideration of Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; 176 ALR 693 – finding that neither textual nor contextual considerations supported Respondents’ preferred construction – breach of contract established – damages awarded
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 341, 351, 360, 361, 539, 542, 545, 546 Cases cited: AustralianBuilding and Construction Commissioner v CoreStaff WA Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 893
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall [2018] FCAFC 83; 261 FCR 347
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] HCA 32; 248 CLR 500
Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian Pty Ltd (1996) 142 ALR 144
Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24; 149 CLR 337
Collison v Brighton Road Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCCA 1798
Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; 258 CLR 482
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; 176 ALR 693
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41; 253 CLR 243
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 987
Dafallah v Fair Work Commission [2014] FCA 328; 225 FCR 559
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55; 218 CLR 471
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] FCA 1407
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that TechnologyOne did not discharge the onus of proving that the complaints of bullying were not a reason for Mr Roohizadegan's termination of employment. Consequently, the court held that adverse action was established under the Fair Work Act. The court also found that TechnologyOne breached Mr Roohizadegan's employment contract by not paying certain incentives, considering neither textual nor contextual considerations supported TechnologyOne's preferred construction of the contract. As a result, Mr Roohizadegan was awarded pecuniary penalties, compensation for economic loss, compensation analogous to general damages, and damages for breach of contract. The court ordered TechnologyOne to pay Mr Roohizadegan $40,000.00 and $7,000.00 in penalties, $756,410.00 for his forgone share options, $2,825,000.00 for future economic loss, and $10,000.00 for compensation analogous to general damages. Additionally, Mr Roohizadegan was awarded $1,590,000.00 for breach of contract.
The court concluded that the Fair Work Commission's decision to uphold Mr Roohizadegan's application was correct. The court ordered TechnologyOne to pay Mr Roohizadegan the penalties and compensation as outlined above. The parties were instructed to confer and propose orders for pre-judgment interest. If the parties could not agree, they were to provide their separate proposed orders and submissions. The court also provided guidelines for any future applications for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Applicant’s application made pursuant to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Fair Work Act) be upheld.
2. Pursuant to s 546 of the Fair Work Act:
(a) the First Respondent pay a penalty of $40,000.00; and
(b) the Second Respondent pay a penalty of $7,000.00.
3. Pursuant to s 546(3)(c) of the Fair Work Act, the penalties imposed pursuant to Order 2 be paid to the Applicant.
4. Subject to Order 9 in respect of pre-judgment interest to be awarded thereon, pursuant to s 545 of the Fair Work Act the First Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $756,410.00 as compensation in respect of his forgone share options.
5. Pursuant to s 545 of the Fair Work Act, the First Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $2,825,000.00 as compensation for his future economic loss.
6. Pursuant to s 545 of the Fair Work Act, the First Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $10,000.00 as compensation analogous to general damages.
7. In respect of the Applicant’s associated claim in contract against the First Respondent there be judgment for the Applicant.
8. Subject to Order 9 in respect of pre-judgment interest to be awarded thereon, the Applicant be awarded damages for breach of contract in the sum of $1,590,000.00.
9. The parties are to confer with the aim of providing the Court with agreed proposed orders as to what, if any, amounts should be awarded by way of pre-judgment interest additional to the compensation and damages awarded pursuant to Orders 4 and 8, no later than 14 days from the date of publication of these reasons.
10. If proposed orders cannot be agreed pursuant to Order 9, the parties are to provide the Court with their separate proposed orders and may file any written submissions (of no more than 2 pages) on which they would wish to rely with respect to those proposals, no later than 21 days from the date of publication of these reasons.
11. Subject to Orders 12-14, there be no order as to costs.
12. If a party seeks an order for costs, that party shall file and serve written submissions (of no more than 5 pages) within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.
13. If submissions are filed pursuant to Order 12, the party seeking an alternative order shall file and serve any responsive submissions (of no more than 5 pages) within 28 days of the publication of these reasons.
14. Any application for such orders in respect of costs to be determined on the papers.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.