Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
TechnologyOne Limited v Roohizadegan [2021] FCAFC 137 Appeal from: Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1407 Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 4) [2020] FCA 1729 Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 1734
File number: VID 691 of 2020
Judgment of: RANGIAH, WHITE AND O'CALLAGHAN JJ
Date of judgment: 5 August 2021
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – adverse action – where primary judge found that respondent was dismissed in contravention of s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – appeal against order to that effect on the grounds that the judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his conclusion and did not answer the question whether the appellants had established that the adverse action was not taken for a reason proscribed by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), or for reasons which included such a reason, by reference to all the evidence – appeal allowed – cross-appeal and notice of contention dismissed, new trial of adverse action claim ordered CONTRACT – where primary judge found that respondent was entitled to be paid an incentive payment pursuant to the respondent's contract of employment – whether on its proper construction respondent so entitled – appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed – new trial of claim for breach of contract of employment and other claims for damages ordered
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Pt 3-1, ss 340(1), 340(1)(a)(ii), 340(1)(c), 341, 341(1)(c)(ii), 342(1), 360, 361, 361(1)
Cases cited: Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCA 165; 243 LGERA 102 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall (2018) 261 FCR 347 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 378 Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Anglo Coal (Dawson Services) Pty Ltd (2015) 238 FCR 273 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243 Cummins South Pacific Pty Ltd v Keenan [2020] FCAFC 204 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 General Motors-Holden's Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 51 ALJR 235 Goodrich Aerospace Pty Limited v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186 Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited (2015) 256 CLR 104 Moylan v Nutrasweet Co [2000] NSWCA 337 Nagamuthu v Shanmugarajah [2019] NSWCA 288 Palmer v Clarke (1989) 19 NSWLR 158 Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2003) 216 CLR 53 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 State of Victoria (Office of Public Prosecution) v Grant [2014] FCAFC 184; 246 IR 441 Tattsbet v Morrow (2015) 233 FCR 46 Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57; (2005) 79 ALJR 1816
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate