Documentation, decision-making, and the real cost of dismissal
When Technology One dismissed its Victorian regional manager in 2016, it documented everything. A decade later, that decision was vindicated in the Federal Court.
Behnam Roohizadegan was Technology One's Victorian regional manager when the company ended his employment in 2016. He alleged it was unlawful – adverse action under the Fair Work Act – and pursued claims against both the company and its founder and then-CEO, Adrian Di Marco, spanning discrimination, workplace complaints, and a total demand exceeding $55 million.
He had reason for confidence, at first. At the original trial, Justice Kerr found in his favour and awarded him approximately $5.2 million. Technology One appealed. The Full Court ordered a retrial. And this time, the result was the opposite. On 18 December 2025, Justice McElwaine dismissed the case entirely.
The court found that Technology One had solid, documented grounds for the termination: poor financial performance, an inability to accept changes to the management structure following a new direct superior's appointment in October 2014, poor interaction with subordinates, and flatline licence fee revenue. A key internal email from April 2016 crystallised the collapse of trust between Roohizadegan and Di Marco.
"The contemporaneous evidence weighed heavily in favour of the valid reasons that Technology One gave for terminating the applicant," Justice McElwaine wrote.
That evidence, compiled well before any litigation loomed, proved decisive.
The quantum claim fared no better. The $55 million figure rested on the assumption that Roohizadegan would have remained employed with Technology One until retirement, or secured equivalent work elsewhere. The court found both assumptions objectively untenable.
Mid-trial, in April 2025, Roohizadegan's solicitors put a $30 million settlement offer to the respondents. It was flatly rejected, described as "completely divorced from the state of the evidence." The respondents countered with $2.2 million, inclusive of all costs. That offer went unanswered.
On 4 March 2026, following the December dismissal, Justice McElwaine ordered Roohizadegan to pay the respondents' costs from the date of that unanswered offer – 6 April 2025.
Also notable was the dispute over who actually made the termination call. Roohizadegan alleged that 10 people beyond Di Marco had either made or materially influenced the decision. The court rejected that, with affidavit evidence from each of those individuals confirming Di Marco alone was the decision-maker.
The applicant's health was also raised in arguments against the costs order. His solicitor contended that Roohizadegan's psychiatric condition made it difficult to make decisions about the litigation. The court gave that argument no weight, noting that none of the five psychiatrists who gave joint expert evidence had said the applicant was incapable of giving his lawyers instructions.
What the judgment makes plain, for anyone managing people and performance, is that real-time documentation of performance issues is not a procedural nicety – it is what holds up in court years later. So is having a clear, recorded chain of authority around who makes the termination call. And where loss is claimed, the figures need to be grounded in what was actually realistic, not a best-case projection.
The case ran for a decade. Technology One ultimately prevailed, but the length of that road is its own reminder of the cost – in every sense – of a contested dismissal.
