Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 1734

Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 1734

The Applicant established entitlement to limited costs under s 570(2)(b) only where the Respondents' conduct was unreasonable and caused discrete costs: rejecting the Applicant's 1 November 2019 offer of $3,400,000 and failing to make a plausible counter-offer after the trial evidence had exposed the strength of the Applicant's case, the Second Respondent's failure to attend the court-ordered mediation after a commitment that he would participate, and the Respondents' pursuit of a temporary stay application without a relevant basis. The other asserted conduct was not shown to be unreasonable for s 570(2)(b) purposes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in a General Protections Proceeding Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Determined on the Papers After Judgment for the Applicant
Outcome
Application for costs allowed in part; limited party-party costs orders made for specified categories, otherwise no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 570' 'general Protections' 'unreasonable Act or Omission Causing Costs' 'settlement Offers' 'mediation Participation' 'temporary Stay Application']
['employment and Industrial Relations' 'costs'] ['fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 570' 'general Protections' 'unreasonable Act or Omission Causing Costs' 'settlement Offers' 'mediation Participation' 'temporary Stay Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in a General Protections Proceeding Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Determined on the Papers After Judgment for the Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondents' unreasonable acts or omissions caused the Applicant to incur costs within s 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)." "Whether the Respondents' defence of the proceeding was unreasonable." 'Whether the Respondents unreasonably refused, failed to accept, or failed to make reasonable settlement offers.' "Whether the Second Respondent's failure to participate in mediation was unreasonable." "Whether the Respondents' reliance on certain character evidence was unreasonable." "Whether the Respondents' interlocutory discovery application was unreasonable." "Whether the Respondents' interlocutory application for a temporary stay was unreasonable." "Whether the Second Respondent's refusal to participate in the Fair Work Commission matter was unreasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant established entitlement to limited costs under s 570(2)(b) only where the Respondents' conduct was unreasonable and caused discrete costs: rejecting the Applicant's 1 November 2019 offer of $3,400,000 and failing to make a plausible counter-offer after the trial evidence had exposed the strength of the Applicant's case, the Second Respondent's failure to attend the court-ordered mediation after a commitment that he would participate, and the Respondents' pursuit of a temporary stay application without a relevant basis. The other asserted conduct was not shown to be unreasonable for s 570(2)(b) purposes.

Court Disposition

Application for costs allowed in part; limited party-party costs orders made for specified categories, otherwise no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents pay the Applicant's costs of proceeding VID996/2016, as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed on a party-party basis, limited to costs thrown away by reason of the Applicant having to make closing submissions on 4 November 2019, costs incurred in connection with the mediation conducted by...