TechnologyOne Limited v Roohizadegan [2021] FCAFC 137

TechnologyOne Limited v Roohizadegan [2021] FCAFC 137

The appeal was allowed as the primary judge failed to provide adequate reasons for finding the statutory presumption under s 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was not displaced, and did not properly assess whether any of the seven complaints were a substantial and operative factor in the decision to terminate employment. In relation to the contract claim, the judge erred in construing the contract without proper regard to the evidence and surrounding circumstances. Both the adverse action and contract claims must be retried.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal and notice of contention dismissed; orders of primary judge set aside; remitted for new trial.
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'breach of Contract' 'workplace Rights' 'remedies' 'procedural Fairness' 'dismissal']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['adverse Action' 'breach of Contract' 'workplace Rights' 'remedies' 'procedural Fairness' 'dismissal']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his conclusion that the appellants did not displace the statutory presumption under s 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether the primary judge erred in the construction of the employment contract regarding incentive payments.' 'Whether adverse action was taken in contravention of s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether damages and penalties were properly awarded based on findings at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed as the primary judge failed to provide adequate reasons for finding the statutory presumption under s 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was not displaced, and did not properly assess whether any of the seven complaints were a substantial and operative factor in the decision to terminate employment. In relation to the contract claim, the judge erred in construing the contract without proper regard to the evidence and surrounding circumstances. Both the adverse action and contract claims must be retried.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal and notice of contention dismissed; orders of primary judge set aside; remitted for new trial.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Orders made by the primary judge on 2 October 2020 and in respect of pre-judgment interest and costs made on 30 November 2020 be set aside.' 'The cross-appeal and the notice of contention be dismissed.' 'The matter be remitted for a new trial.']