He initially won $5.2m at the first trial — here's what changed
A former star manager's $54.7 million workplace rights claim against ASX giant Technology One has collapsed, with the Federal Court clearing the employer on 18 December 2025.
The case of Roohizadegan v Technology One Ltd (No 6) [2025] FCA 1619 had all the makings of a cautionary tale for employers: a high-performing manager, a string of workplace complaints, a mental health condition, and a termination that left him permanently unable to work.
Yet after 27 days of evidence, Justice McElwaine found that Technology One had done nothing wrong.
Behnam Roohizadegan joined the Brisbane-based software company in July 2006 as Victorian regional manager. By any measure, he excelled. Over seven years, he grew the region's licence fee revenue from approximately $1.3 million to $10.1 million. He earned substantial bonuses and won corporate awards. Founder and then-CEO Adrian Di Marco praised him repeatedly.
But relations soured after October 2014, when Martin Harwood was appointed as operating officer for sales and marketing and Roohizadegan began reporting to him. On Roohizadegan's case, that is when his relationship with Technology One began to deteriorate. He began escalating complaints to senior management about how his region was being treated. In May 2016, Di Marco terminated his employment.
Roohizadegan sued, alleging that he was sacked because he had exercised workplace rights by making those complaints. He also claimed discrimination on the basis of his Major Depressive Disorder, argued he was misled about the purpose of the meeting at which he was dismissed, and sought unpaid incentives under his contract.
At a first trial in October and November 2019, he was awarded approximately $5.2 million. Technology One appealed, and the Full Court ordered the matter be heard again.
This time, the outcome was different.
Justice McElwaine found that Di Marco decided to terminate Roohizadegan between 25 and 26 April 2016, but delayed acting until he could be certain it would not jeopardise an important contract with La Trobe University. The reasons, the Court held, were perfectly lawful: well-established and documented poor economic performance in meeting sales targets and budgets for the Victorian region, a persistent inability to accept decisions made by more senior managers, an inability to integrate into organisational change, and a damning assessment of morale and employee relations in the Victorian regional office.
That assessment proved pivotal. Rebecca Gibbons, the company's human resources business partner, had visited the Melbourne office in April 2016 and reported her findings in an email of 24 April 2016.
The Court acknowledged that the termination caused Roohizadegan's pre-existing Major Depressive Disorder to be exacerbated to the point where he is now totally incapacitated for employment. But it found that a lawful termination would have had the same consequence, which undermined his claim that the manner of his sacking caused his injuries.
The misrepresentation and contract claims also failed. The Court was not satisfied that Roohizadegan had been misled, nor that objectively the parties intended to include revenue from a separate business unit in his incentive calculation.
For HR professionals, the decision underscores the importance of contemporaneous documentation. Justice McElwaine noted that fact-finding placed considerable reliance on contemporaneous documents where the Court concluded the document authentically recorded the event in issue.
The proceeding was dismissed.
