Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 3)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 1571  

File number:

VID 996 of 2016

Judgment of:

KERR J

Date of judgment:

26 October 2020

Date of publication of reasons:

28 October 2020

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – judgment in favour of the Applicant in money sums – application advanced by the Respondents for a stay of execution of orders pending a foreshadowed appeal and application for a stay to the Full Court – no material before the Court going to the prospects of success of the proposed appeal – no evidence before the Court that the Applicant would be unable to repay the judgment sum if the foreshadowed appeal were to succeed – application dismissed

Legislation:

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 36.08, 39.02

Cases cited:

Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 184

Barker v Lavery (1885) 14 QBD 769

Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 65 FCR 66

Huang v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2020] FCA 1518

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1998] HCA 30; 195 CLR 1

Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; 331 ALR 55

Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1407

Division:

Fair Work Division

Registry:

Victoria

National Practice Area:

Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs:

31

Date of hearing:

21 and 26 October 2020

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J Tracey and Mr R Minson

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Harmers Workplace Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr S Wood QC and Mr B Jellis

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Cooper Grace Ward

ORDERS

VID 996 of 2016

BETWEEN:

BENHAM ROOHIZADEGAN

Applicant

AND:

TECHNOLOGYONE LIMITED

First Respondent

ADRIAN DI MARCO

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	KERR J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 OCTOBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Respondents’ interlocutory application of 20 October 2020 be dismissed.

2.The interlocutory order made by the Court on 21 October 2020 be discharged.

3.The parties provide short submissions on the costs of the interlocutory application, limited to one page, to be filed on the timetable set for costs submissions in the principal matter and determined on the papers.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

KERR J:

1. This matter concerns an interlocutory application filed on 20 October 2020 by the Respondents to the substantive proceeding, TechnologyOne Limited and Mr Adrian Di Marco. The application is supported by an affidavit of Ms Megan Moffitt Pool. In that application, orders were sought that the hearing of the interlocutory application be expedited and that paragraphs 1 to 8 of the orders that I made on 2 October 2020 be stayed until 16 November 2020 or until further order. In response to that affidavit, the successful Applicant in the substantive proceeding - the Respondent to the interlocutory application - filed an affidavit of Mr Jacob William White dated 20 October 2020.