Tzaros v ServiceNow Australia Pty Ltd

This Federal Court decision arose from an employment dispute between Ms Eleni Tzaros and ServiceNow Australia Pty Ltd. Ms Tzaros had worked as a senior commercial account executive from March 2022 until her employment ended in January 2025. After the employment relationship broke down, she commenced a Federal Court proceeding in March 2025 following the issue of a Fair Work certificate dated 18 February 2025.

The allegations summarised by the Court covered both recruitment and employment. Ms Tzaros said she had been recruited for a role involving specialty healthcare accounts because of her healthcare industry and strategic sales experience. She said she was told certain things about the role she would perform and the support that would be available. She later alleged those representations were misleading. During employment, she said there were problems with the number and type of accounts allocated to her, concerns about achieving sales targets, and what she described as unrealistic expectations and interference by her manager.

The Court's summary of her affidavit evidence also records allegations that she felt ambushed in meetings, bullied by unsolicited feedback, excluded from work opportunities and micromanaged. She said there was a lack of support for her role and that this affected her quota. She also raised concerns about a healthcare executive event and alleged gender bias, including sexual or misogynistic remarks in a male dominated workplace. She said no action was taken after she reported one August 2024 incident, and she alleged a male colleague was treated more favourably and that she was overlooked for leadership roles.

Her dismissal was also in issue. The Court recorded that she said the stated reason for dismissal was failure to meet performance expectations, but she alleged those expectations were unrealistic and not imposed on others, and that the real reasons were connected with the inquiries, suggestions and opinions she had expressed about her employment.

The originating application sought relief under section 545 of the Fair Work Act for alleged contraventions of the general protections provisions in Part 3-1. The Court summarised the applicant's case as including allegations that she exercised workplace rights by making inquiries in relation to her employment. Those alleged inquiries included seeking to raise issues she was facing with her manager, the way her role was being minimised and coopted, and the way her speciality role was being misapplied and misunderstood.

She alleged ServiceNow took adverse action against her by minimising and coopting her role, impinging on and unnecessarily performance managing her work, and dismissing her. She also alleged adverse action because she had exercised workplace rights, and adverse action due to her sex after raising issues of sexism and misogyny in the workplace.

In addition, she brought claims under sections 18 and 31 of the Australian Consumer Law. The Court recorded that she alleged misleading or deceptive representations on which she relied to her detriment. The ACL provisions identified by the Court concern misleading or deceptive conduct generally, and conduct liable to mislead persons seeking employment as to the availability, nature, terms or conditions of employment or another matter relating to employment.

The applicant also claimed compensation for loss she said she had suffered, including loss of income, stress and anxiety, and amounts she said she would not receive by way of an appropriate redundancy and a share payout of about $180,000.

The issue decided by Horan J was narrower than the underlying dispute, but very important in practice. The Court had to decide whether the applicant's concise statement, read together with the supplementary concise statement, gave ServiceNow adequate notice of the case it had to meet in relation to the alleged Part 3-1 Fair Work Act contraventions. If not, the Court had to decide whether the matter should proceed by formal pleadings, starting with a statement of claim.

The reasons explain the role of a concise statement under the Federal Court's practice framework. A concise statement is an alternative accompanying document that can be filed with an originating application. Its purpose is to bring to the attention of the respondent and the Court the key issues and key facts at the heart of the dispute, as well as the essential relief sought, before the parties incur the cost of detailed pleadings. The Court emphasised that a concise statement is not intended to be a short form of pleading.

At the same time, the Court made clear that the concise statement method does not remove the need for fairness. Even though concise statements are not governed by all the traditional rules of pleading, they still must provide fair disclosure of the nature of the case. They cannot obscure the case through overly broad generalisations or incomplete articulation of the cause of action. The opposing party must still know, with sufficient clarity, the case to be met at trial.

The Court also referred to the broader case management powers available under the Federal Court Rules and the Central Practice Note. A proceeding may start with a concise statement, but the Court can later require pleadings, particulars, narrative statements or other procedural steps if that is what fairness and efficient case management require.

The Court set out the procedural history in some detail. At the first case management hearing on 4 April 2025, orders were made requiring concise statements and referring the matter to mediation. The applicant then filed a concise statement dated 2 May 2025. After ServiceNow raised concerns, the applicant filed a supplementary concise statement dated 27 June 2025. ServiceNow remained dissatisfied and, by interlocutory application dated 13 August 2025, sought orders requiring a statement of claim and that the matter proceed by pleadings.

The reasons record that ServiceNow's solicitors wrote on 21 May 2025 identifying what they described as material deficiencies in the concise statement. Their complaint was that the document failed to provide fair notice of the issues and the case ServiceNow had to meet, and did not adequately identify or particularise with precision the material facts underpinning the allegations.

The Court summarised the examples raised by ServiceNow. These included the details of the alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations, the basis for the allegation regarding the applicant's projected earnings with her former employer, the basis for alleged deficiencies in ServiceNow's readiness for the Australian market, the specific occasions on which the manager was said to have behaved unreasonably, the occasions on which concerns or inquiries were raised, the workplace rights said to have been exercised in reporting an offensive comment, the specific occasions on which the manager was said to have reduced direct interactions or excluded the applicant from communications and clients, and the basis for alleging unreasonable performance targets.

The supplementary concise statement attempted to address those concerns. In some areas it gave more detail, including identifying late 2021 communications with ServiceNow representatives such as an internal recruiter and a Senior Sales Director, and referring to an interview around 21 January 2022 involving the managing director for Australia and New Zealand and other senior leaders. It also elaborated on the applicant's alleged reliance on those representations in leaving her former employer and accepting employment with ServiceNow in what she described as a lesser role.

But the Court also noted that, in some areas, the supplementary concise statement relied heavily on cross-references to paragraphs of the March and April affidavits rather than setting out a clear and self-contained articulation of the case. The Court's discussion of concise statements makes the broader point that while they are flexible and not traditional pleadings, they still must expose the key facts and legal case with enough clarity to give fair notice. On Horan J's view, that standard had not been met for the alleged Part 3-1 Fair Work Act contraventions.

Horan J held that the concise statement, read together with the supplementary concise statement, did not provide adequate notice of the applicant's case in relation to the alleged contraventions of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act. The Court therefore ordered that the applicant file and serve a statement of claim by 6 February 2026, the respondent file and serve a defence by 6 March 2026, and the applicant file any reply by 20 March 2026.

The Court also vacated orders 5 and 6 made on 3 June 2025, referred the matter to a Registrar for mediation on a date to be fixed not before 6 April 2026, provided that if the matter did not resolve at mediation it be listed for a further case management hearing, reserved costs and granted liberty to apply.

Just as importantly, the Court did not determine the truth of the allegations. It did not decide whether ServiceNow had taken adverse action, whether any recruitment representations were misleading, whether there had been sex-based adverse action, or whether the applicant was entitled to compensation. This was a procedural ruling about the form in which the case had to be put before the merits could be properly addressed.

There are two practical readings of this case for business owners and managers.

First, it is a reminder that litigation often turns on process before the Court reaches the merits. A business defending a claim should not assume that a broad narrative in a concise statement is enough. If the allegations do not clearly identify the material facts, the relevant incidents, the people involved, the dates and the legal links, there may be a basis to seek a more precise pleading. That can matter a great deal in mixed employment disputes involving multiple alleged incidents, motivations and legal causes of action.

Secondly, the allegations summarised by the Court show the kinds of conduct that commonly become contested in employment litigation. Recruitment statements can later be characterised as misleading representations. Role design and account allocation can become part of a dispute about whether the employee was set up to fail. Complaints about treatment, sexism or workplace culture can become central to workplace rights and adverse action allegations. Performance management and dismissal records can become the main evidence on motive and fairness.

For employers, the practical response is not just legal drafting. It is disciplined business process. Keep recruitment communications consistent. Make sure role descriptions, support assumptions, targets and reporting lines are realistic and documented. Record employee complaints and management responses carefully. If performance concerns arise, document the reasons, the expectations, the support offered and the chronology. Before termination, check that the business can explain what happened, when, who made the decision and why.

For claimants and respondents alike, this case also shows that affidavits and broad summaries are not always enough to define the issues. Where a dispute is factually dense, the Court may require a conventional statement of claim and defence so that each side knows exactly what is in issue.

The judgment itself is procedural, but the allegations it summarises point to the documents and conduct that often matter most in this kind of dispute. In recruitment, that includes interview notes, recruiter emails, messages about role scope, statements about support or market opportunity, and any communications about likely earnings, accounts or progression. If those records are inconsistent, they may become difficult to explain later.

During employment, the key records are usually role descriptions, account allocation records, target or quota documents, meeting notes, performance feedback, HR records, complaint reports, investigation steps, emails about support requests and any communications around performance management or termination. The Court's summary shows how a dispute can draw together many different strands of workplace conduct into one proceeding.

Businesses should also note that the Court referred to allegations about exclusion from communications and clients, reduced direct interactions, unrealistic performance targets and the handling of a complaint about an offensive comment. Those are all examples of matters that can become legally significant depending on the claims made. Good records do not guarantee a business will avoid a claim, but they usually improve the business's ability to explain what happened and respond clearly if proceedings are commenced.

The judgment was delivered on 18 December 2025 by Horan J in the Federal Court of Australia. The orders required the applicant to file a statement of claim by 6 February 2026, the respondent to file a defence by 6 March 2026, and the applicant to file any reply by 20 March 2026. The matter was referred to mediation before a Registrar on a date to be fixed not before 6 April 2026.

As at this decision, the case had not reached a final determination on the underlying Fair Work Act or Australian Consumer Law allegations. This page should therefore be read as a note on pleading and case management, not as a final merits outcome.