A former tech executive who once celebrated a record $5.2 million Fair Work general protections payout is now facing a legal costs bill potentially in the millions. Following a retrial that branded him a “fabulist,” the Federal Court ordered the executive to pay the legal costs of his former employer and its founder. This came after he rejected a multi-million dollar settlement offer to pursue a “completely divorced” $30 million demand.
In this article, we examine the dramatic reversal of the manager’s legal outcome in the case Roohizadegan v Technology One Limited (No 7) [2026]. Later, we look at the case of a worker ordered to pay her employer’s legal costs for pursuing a misadvised lawsuit.
Mr. Roohizadegan served as the Victorian regional manager for Brisbane-headquartered software company Technology One for a decade. He initially achieved success in the role. Under his leadership, licence fee revenue grew from $1.3 million to $10 million. However, the relationship fractured following management changes in 2014 and a subsequent stagnation in regional revenue.
Following Mr. Roohizadegan’s termination of employment in May 2016, Mr. Roohizadegan alleged that he was targeted for exercising his workplace rights. In his Fair Work general protections claim, he said that he was dismissed because he made bullying complaints and raised concerns about senior leadership. He further alleged adverse action due to facing discrimination based on his mental disabilities, including severe stress, anxiety and depression.
In October 2020, the Federal Court delivered what was then considered a record-breaking judgment. It found that Technology One and its then-CEO, Adrian Di Marco, had taken unlawful adverse action against Mr. Roohizadegan. This was because they had dismissed him in retaliation to exercising his workplace rights. Due to the “reverse onus of proof” requirement for Fair Work general protections claims, Technology One had to prove that the complaints were not a “substantial and operative reason” for his dismissal.
The court ruled that the company failed to meet this burden and that it had committed adverse action. Mr. Roohizadegan was awarded a record $5,221,410 Fair Work general protections payout for his unfair dismissal. This amount was to compensate him for the loss of a high-earning career. The compensation also factored in the significant mental health breakdown he suffered following his termination of employment.
Technology One and Mr. Di Marco appealed the adverse action decision. In 2021, the Full Federal Court identified several critical “legal errors” in how the first trial was conducted. The court found that the original judge had not explained how the bullying complaints were the reason for the dismissal. It also ruled that just because Mr. Di Marco was aware of the complaints, it did not mean they were the reason for the termination of employment. The Full Court held that the judge had failed to properly evaluate the nature and context of the complaints alongside the company’s evidence of Mr. Roohizadegan’s poor performance.
A retrial was ordered, which commenced in 2024. The court focused on the “substantial and operative reason” for the dismissal. It accepted evidence from Mr. Di Marco that the termination was motivated by lawful business considerations rather than prohibited reasons or adverse action. These business considerations included that Technology One’s Victorian region had recorded no growth for three consecutive years. The court also found that Mr. Roohizadegan demonstrated a “persistent inability to accept decisions” made by senior management.
During the retrial, the court made several findings that would later contribute to the decision for Mr. Roohizadegan to pay the respondents’ legal costs. It described him as a “fabulist” who provided “multiple false statements” and “transparent lies” during cross-examination. In contrast, Mr. Di Marco was found to have made a genuine attempt to recall events. Medical experts agreed that Mr. Roohizadegan suffered from obsessive-compulsive personality traits. This led the court to conclude that he had used work as a destructive diversion to suppress symptoms.
While the retrial was happening, in April 2025 Mr. Roohizadegan’s legal team demanded Technology One to pay him $30 million to settle the adverse action proceedings. The company rejected that proposal, with its solicitor describing it as “embarrassing” and “completely divorced” from the state of the evidence. On the same day, Mr. Roohizadegan’s legal team countered with what they argued was a “genuine commercially based offer” of $2,200,000. The offer would see both parties pay their own legal costs. This was also rejected by Technology One.
The retrial reached its end on 18 December 2025. The court ultimately found that Technology One had successfully discharged the reverse onus of proof. It ruled that the termination of employment was not for any proscribed reason such as workplace complaints or disability. The court said that it was a lawful dismissal based on “well-established and documented poor performance.”
Mr. Di Marco noted that the almost 10 years’ worth of adverse action litigation cost over $10 million to defend and involved a claim that eventually escalated to $80 million in sought compensation. Shortly after the retrial decision, he and Technology One lodged an application of costs with the Federal Court of Australia. They sought legal costs on the basis that Mr. Roohizadegan had failed to focus his adverse action claims and had rejected the $2.2 million settlement.
In December 2025, the costs application was heard by the court. Technology One and Mr. Di Marco argued that Mr. Roohizadegan’s conduct during the retrial was unreasonable. They pointed to his “expansive list of contentions,” which at one point involved over 350 combinations of alleged adverse action. Technology One asserted that many of these claims were “inherently weak.” It said that these forced the respondents to incur unnecessary expenses by calling numerous witnesses to rebut allegations that were eventually abandoned.
Mr. Roohizadegan argued that he should not have to pay the respondents’ legal costs. He defended his legal action by explaining that he had a reasonable belief that it would succeed. He said that he had this belief due to his initial success in the first adverse action trial. Mr. Roohizadegan suggested that the outcome of the case heavily depended on Mr. Di Marco’s credibility, which could not be known until the judge delivered the final verdict.
Mr. Roohizadegan also raised the fact that his medical conditions contributed to his conduct during legal proceedings. His legal team said that he was “distressed” during the course of settlement discussions. They also said that a psychiatric condition made it “difficult” for him to reach decisions and provide rational instructions to them. Mr. Roohizadegan’s team contended that it was not unreasonable to decline an offer when a more beneficial result was perceived as possible.
The Federal Court of Australia took particular issue with Mr. Roohizadegan’s rejection of the $2.2 million adverse action settlement offer. It said that by the time the offer was made, legal proceedings had made it “manifestly clear” that a finding of adverse action would not be “highly likely.” The court said that the settlement offer was “genuine,” designed to end legal proceedings and save both parties from future litigation risk and significant costs.
The court found that Mr. Roohizadegan should have given “mature reflection” on the progress of his Fair Work general protections case. It said that the “inherent weakness” of his claims was “objectively clear.” The court also dismissed Mr. Roohizadegan’s reliance on his first trial’s success, noting that the retrial provided a “seismic shift” in the litigation risk. The court also addressed arguments around Mr. Roohizadegan’s health and capacity. It said that the evidence for it was “distinctly unsatisfactory” and noted that no litigation guardian had been sought.
It was also highlighted that none of the psychiatrists who gave evidence thought that Mr. Roohizadegan was incapable of giving instructions to his legal team. Mr. Roohizadegan’s “objectively untenable” demand for a $30,000,000 settlement was also called out. Ultimately, the court ordered that Mr. Roohizadegan had to pay the legal costs of Technology One and Mr. Di Marco.
Another recent case where legal action ended up with the employee paying hefty legal costs is the Supreme Court of Queensland case Bakhit v Hartley Healy Pty Ltd [2025]. Hamde Bakhit was employed by Brisbane-based law firm Hartley Healy across two periods between 2013 and 2016. During her second stint at the firm, Ms. Bakhit alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a solicitor between December 2015 and April 2016. The allegations eventually led to her termination of employment.
Following her departure, Ms. Bakhit lodged a sexual harassment and victimisation complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. It proceeded to a conciliation in April 2017, where the parties agreed to a settlement. Hartley Healy paid Ms. Bakhit $30,000 and converted her termination of employment to a resignation. In exchange, Ms. Bakhit signed a settlement deed that protected the firm from all future claims. This included protection from any claim for statutory benefits under Queensland’s Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act).
Despite the 2017 agreement, in 2021 Ms. Bakhit commenced a new lawsuit against Hartley Healy in the Supreme Court of Queensland. She sought damages for breach of contract and negligence arising from the sexual harassment allegations. Ms. Bakhit argued that because the state’s workers’ compensation laws regulate how employees sue their bosses, her lawsuit qualified as a “statutory benefit” and was therefore not barred by the settlement deed.
Ms. Bakhit contended that the WCR Act is the “gateway” through which an individual must pass in order to attain damages, making the right to sue a benefit of the Act. She further argued that any deed that allowed the settlement to extinguish her rights would be “absurd.” Ms. Bakhit claimed that this would lead to an “unreasonable” or “unjust consequence.”
In its legal costs claim, Hartley Healy argued to the Supreme Court of Queensland that the WCR Act draws a distinction between two concepts when it comes to statutory benefits. The firm said that “compensation” refers to the no-fault scheme for medical bills and weekly payments. Meanwhile, “damages” refers to legal liabilities created independently of the WCR Act. Hartley Healy maintained that the statutory benefits exception in the deed existed only because the WCR Act prevents workers from ever relinquishing their right to no-fault compensation.
The firm argued that Ms. Bakhit was effectively trying to “double dip” by seeking further damages after already accepting a settlement. It pointed to the deed’s indemnity clause. This stipulated that if either party breached the agreement by suing over released claims, they would be liable for the other side’s legal costs.
The Supreme Court of Queensland formally heard the matter in December 2025. One of its key tasks was to work out whether a common law claim for damages falls under the umbrella of “statutory benefits.” The court found that it is only “the concept of compensation” which would meet the description of a statutory benefit under the WCR Act. It determined that the right to sue for negligence or breach of contract is a common law right that the statute merely “regulates” or “curtails,” rather than creates.
The court found that the 2017 settlement was a valid bar to the new proceedings. It acknowledged that Ms. Bakhit may have felt that she made a “bad bargain” with that settlement. However, the court said that she could not “rewrite the clear words of the contract.” It said that the release and discharge clause itself was “part of the price which was paid for” in the original settlement.
In the end, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled entirely in favour of Hartley Healy. Because Ms. Bakhit had breached the settlement by suing, the court triggered the deed’s indemnity clause. Ms. Bakhit was ordered to pay Hartley Healy’s legal costs for the four-year litigation on a “full solicitor client basis.” This higher level of costs intended to cover nearly all expenses incurred by the firm. This meant that Ms. Bakhit likely owed significantly more than the $30,000 she originally received.
Read more: Worker’s ‘Hopeless’ ChatGPT Advice Tanks General Protections Claim
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives works with employees nationwide on unfair dismissal, general protections disputes and sexual harassment matters. We can help you take action against your employer to hold them accountable and get the compensation you deserve.
We offer a no win, no fee service, and your first consultation with us is free and confidential. Make sure you act fast, as strict deadlines apply for filing Fair Work Commission claims. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 to discuss how you can take action.
