EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 187

Roohizadegan v Technology One (No 7)

A Federal Court employment costs case about unreasonable litigation conduct, a $2.

Federal Court of Australia4 Mar 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Fair Work litigation is not always risk-free on costs.
  • A Federal Court employment costs case about unreasonable litigation conduct, a $2.2 million settlement offer and section 570 of the Fair Work Act.

Use this to check

  • Fair Work costs limits do not protect unreasonable litigation conduct.
  • A case should be narrowed as evidence develops.
  • Settlement offers can change the costs risk after trial evidence exposes weaknesses.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Mr Roohizadegan's long-running adverse action proceeding against Technology One and Adrian Di Marco had already been through trial, appeal and retrial.
    • After the retrial was dismissed, the respondents sought costs under section 570 of the Fair Work Act.
    • They did not argue that the proceeding had been started without reasonable cause.
    • Instead, they relied on unreasonable conduct during the retrial and Mr Roohizadegan's failure to accept a settlement offer made during trial.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether section 570 of the Fair Work Act permitted a partial costs order because of unreasonable conduct in the retrial and an unreasonable failure to accept a Calderbank settlement offer after the trial evidence and risk profile had changed.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court ordered Mr Roohizadegan to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding from 6 April 2025, to be assessed on a lump-sum basis.
    • The Court found that the failure to accept the $2.2 million offer was unreasonable in the circumstances then known.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Fair Work litigation is not always risk-free on costs.
  • A party that runs an over-wide case or rejects a serious settlement offer after the evidence has shifted can still face a costs order under section 570.

Useful next steps

  • Fair Work costs limits do not protect unreasonable litigation conduct.
  • A case should be narrowed as evidence develops.
  • Settlement offers can change the costs risk after trial evidence exposes weaknesses.
  • Large damages claims need realistic assumptions and expert discipline.
  • Employers should keep contemporaneous decision records because they can reshape litigation risk.

Practical read

This case is a good reality check for employers and employees involved in serious Fair Work disputes. Section 570 usually limits costs orders in Fair Work matters, which is why people sometimes describe the jurisdiction as a no-costs or low-costs risk environment. That shorthand is dangerous. The section still allows costs where conduct is unreasonable in the statutory sense.

The Court did not punish Mr Roohizadegan simply because he lost. The history mattered. He had earlier success and the Full Court had ordered a retrial. But by the time of the later offer, the evidence and litigation risk had changed. The Court pointed to the very wide pleading, the multiplication of allegations, the large quantum assumptions, the extra evidence and expert work those choices caused, and the failure to engage with a substantial settlement offer made after much of the trial evidence had unfolded.

For businesses, the lesson is to treat settlement offers as live risk documents. If you are defending a Fair Work claim, make offers carefully and explain the commercial basis. If you are bringing or defending a claim, keep reassessing the case as evidence changes. A claim that was arguable at the start can become unreasonable to continue in the same form.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Reassess pleadings after affidavits, documents and expert evidence are served.
  • Record why a settlement offer is commercially realistic at the time it is made.
  • Avoid multiplying decision-maker or adverse-action allegations without evidence.
  • Stress-test damages assumptions before trial.
  • Keep board, HR and manager records that show the actual reason for employment decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Fair Work costs limits do not protect unreasonable litigation conduct.
  • A case should be narrowed as evidence develops.
  • Settlement offers can change the costs risk after trial evidence exposes weaknesses.
  • Large damages claims need realistic assumptions and expert discipline.
  • Employers should keep contemporaneous decision records because they can reshape litigation risk.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help