Federal Court of Australia
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
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