Behnam Roohizadegan thought he'd seen justice.
He thought it was the end of years of anguish he claims he has suffered because of the alleged bullying and intimidation he faced at the hands of a big corporation.
"When I first took legal action, it wasn't about the money," Mr Roohizadegan tells ABC News.
"I loved my job; I thrived, and I was over-performing."
The Federal Court heard that the former senior manager worked at publicly listed software company TechnologyOne for a decade from 2006 but claims to have been bullied from 2016 by its then senior executives in sales and marketing.
The court heard that on the morning of May 18, 2016, Mr Roohizadegan was summoned to the company's Brisbane office with its then CEO Adrian Di Marco and its then chief operating officer (now CEO) Edward Chung thinking his accusations of bullying would be heard, but instead he was terminated.
In October 2020, then Federal Court Justice Duncan Kerr (who has since retired) found Mr Roohizadegan was unlawfully dismissed, with adverse action taken against him in contravention of the Fair Work Act.
The then judge handed down the highest ever penalty in an Australian unlawful dismissal case, totalling $5.2 million in compensation, damages and penalties.
Justice Kerr found that Mr Roohizadegan was subjected to abusive language and "gas-lighting", with his treatment at the hands of TechnologyOne leaving him "incapable of ever working again".
But, in August 2021, TechnologyOne succeeded in having the record damages bill set aside after the full Federal Court ordered a retrial, overturning Justice Kerr's original judgment.
Now, eight years since his case first started, Mr Roohizadegan is still fighting.
He claims he was sacked because he had made a complaint about bullying.
"Before TechnologyOne sacked me, I was on a trajectory to earn $1.2 million to $1.5 million from 2016," he says.
Mr Roohizadegan says he wants to believe that justice can still be served, but that he has lost faith "based on my experience and what I have seen can happen".
"If I had my time again, I wouldn't do it (make a bullying complaint) again — I would have just walked away."
A TechnologyOne spokesman told ABC News that the company has repeatedly tried to reach an agreement with Mr Roohizadegan to bring the matter to a close.
He said, "the Full Federal Court unanimously set aside all of the findings made by the trial judge" and that "TechnologyOne has made a determined effort to bring this matter to an end with Mr Roohizadegan, including genuine attempts to reach a settlement on many occasions".
"While we remain confident ... we continue to be open to engagement to constructively conclude this matter in a timely fashion which we believe is in the best interests of all parties involved."
Mr Roohizadegan says that since the 2020 judgment, TechnologyOne has not approached his lawyers to offer a settlement.
TechnologyOne says: "Over the past three years, TechnologyOne has made multiple attempts to resolve this matter through legal channels and a reputable intermediary, demonstrating a concerted effort toward resolution."
Eight years on, the legal battle is taking a heavy toll
Mr Roohizadegan says he still suffers depression and anxiety.
Mr Roohizadegan says Technology One hired investigators to monitor him during that time.
"[TechnologyOne] put private detectives outside my home ... since August 2016 to 2018 virtually every day," he says.
TechnologyOne confirmed that they did hire investigators, but said that it was not done to intimidate Mr Roohizadegan and make him back down from his unlawful dismissal claim.
"It is routine in cases where a person says they cannot work at all, to conduct surveillance to confirm whether their claim is true," the company said.
The firm went on to argue that ABC News merely asking the question of whether the surveillance was used to try to intimidate Mr Roohizadegan was "utterly wrong and defamatory to both us and the surveillance firm".
The Federal Court had heard how, leading up to his dismissal, Mr Roohizadegan was already battling depression, triggered by his then teenage daughter contracting a severe illness.
But Mr Roohizadegan says that did not impact his performance at the time as he had brought in strong sales for the company.
The continued legal battle has, however, taken a heavy toll on Mr Roohizadegan.
He suffered a mental breakdown after his dismissal, and says he still regularly sees a psychologist as he often is suicidal, feeling like there's "nothing left to live for".
"I've lost my family — my wife left me, and my children won't talk to me — and I've lost my reputation."
While "no amount of money can compensate me", he says he will continue to fight the case.
He feels Justice Kerr "delivered justice", but that TechnologyOne is using its financial resources "to wear me down".
His case is not the only one involving TechnologyOne that's before the courts.
In another case currently being tried in the Federal Court in Victoria, Brian Sharpe, a former TechnologyOne senior director of sales in the ACT, has lodged an adverse action case, alleging that he was illegally dismissed after making complaints about his employment.
He claims he was forced to work excessive hours in breach of the Fair Work Act before being unfairly performance-managed, bullied and pressured to agree to a severance deal.
TechnologyOne disputes the claims
TechnologyOne disputes Mr Roohizadegan's and Mr Sharpe's claims.
It says Mr Roohizadegan was sacked because his performance wasn't up to scratch.
In a statement to the ASX when the decision in Mr Roohizadegan's case was overturned, TechnologyOne said it was "pleased" and that: "As has been previously reported in the press, this was a senior executive earning close to $1 million per year, who no longer had the confidence of the board and his fellow executives."
In a further statement in response to questions from ABC News this week, TechnologyOne said, in the retrial, Mr Roohizadegan had made new allegations and "greatly expanded the scope of the trial by expanding the number of decision-makers in his termination from 4 to 11 — each now must become a witness — which includes an allegation that a person who was not employed by TechnologyOne at the time made the termination decision."
It said the company was very sensitive to Mr Roohizadegan's mental health issues, but noted that "the plaintiff has sought on numerous occasions to radically expand their case and their claims."
It said that Mr Roohizadegan had also requested that the retrial cover both liability and quantum of damages.
"TechnologyOne, for all parties' sake, wanted to first resolve the liability question alone to shorten and expedite the trial — with quantum of damages to follow if needed — and issues in dispute but this was strenuously opposed by the plaintiff who sought, and was granted, a retrial on both liability and quantum," the company said.
"Since the first trial, the plaintiff has increased the compensation that he is seeking in his statement of claim from approximately $10 million to approximately $60 million."
In relation to the other legal case involving Mr Sharpe, a company spokesman said: "TechnologyOne strongly denies the claims made by Mr Sharpe, as aided by Maurice Blackburn, and will vigorously defend the allegations.
"At no point did the responsibilities or expectations of Mr Sharpe in his role go outside the general working requirements outlined in his employment contract, or which would be expected of a senior sales executive.
"There is currently a strike-out application before the courts to strike-out Mr Sharpe's claim, which is likely to be heard in May."
The company also took issue with ABC News asking questions about the reputational impact of having two former employees mount cases for unlawful dismissal or adverse action.
"TechnologyOne stands by its culture and its people," the spokesman said.
"We compete and win against the world's largest multinational software companies because of our people, our strategy, core beliefs, values and leadership philosophies."
Why the case is being retried
The original court judgment references some complaints being made against Mr Roohizadegan in April 2016, but did not go into their nature in detail.
TechnologyOne founder Adrian Di Marco's evidence in the original trial was that when he became aware on April 25, 2016 of the contents of a HR report regarding the complaints that some of TechnologyOne's staff had made about Mr Roohizadegan's conduct and the culture of the Victorian region, he had immediately concluded that he had no choice "but to let Behnam go".
But his evidence was that Mr Roohizadegan was "almost out the door anyway".
However, the case is being retried after the Full Federal Court — comprising Justices Darryl Rangiah, Richard White and David O'Callaghan — accepted an appeal of the original judgment by TechnologyOne.
These judges said that Justice Kerr failed to consider the "essential integer" of "whether one or more of the seven complaints was or were a substantial and operative factor in Mr Di Marco's decision to terminate Mr Roohizadegan's employment."
The full Federal Court said that "full and clear factual findings" about the complaints were necessary to reach a decision.
"Because the learned judge failed to evaluate the nature of the complaints and the circumstances in which they were made and the process of fact finding thus miscarried, there must be a new trial of the adverse action claim so that such an evaluation can be carried out," the judges said.
The full court said Justice Kerr "erred by failing to have any regard, or any sufficient regard, to a volume of contemporaneous documentation that on its face was consistent with Mr Di Marco’s explanation" that Mr Roohizadegan was fired for poor performance.
"That is another independent reason necessitating a retrial of the adverse action claim, because the process of fact finding miscarried," the full court judges added.
As appellate courts cannot make findings of fact, the matter will be heard again in full.
A key question for the retrial
A key question for the retrial is whether Mr Roohizadegan was dismissed for making a complaint about bullying or because of alleged underperformance.
Justice Kerr in the original Federal Court decision, that has since been overturned, said the decision to sack Mr Roohizadegan happened well in advance of the day of his dismissal in May and was because of his bullying claim.
The decision to terminate him, the then judge found, happened when the company's executive team met on the morning of April 26, 2016.
According to that court transcript, Mr Roohizadegan had given evidence that on May, 13, 2016, he sent emails to Mr Di Marco and TechnologyOne's then chief operating officer Edward Chung (now CEO) to complain about having been bullied.
On May 18, 2016, Mr Roohizadegan flew to Brisbane expecting a meeting with executives would be about his bullying claim, but he was instead sacked.
The then judge noted Mr Di Marco knew that Mr Roohizadegan had already made three complaints about allegations of bullying as well as complaints about decisions having being made behind his back and his being marginalised.
Justice Kerr said that at the "point of time the die was set, Mr Roohizadegan was already on his way to attend his termination meeting, and there was no going back".
He also cited examples of the company confirming Mr Roohizadegan had done a good job.
This included a focus group survey of Victorian staff in 2015 that had given positive feedback of Mr Roohizadegan as a manager.
According to evidence given by Mr Roohizadegan, and noted by the judge in the original trial, the total revenue for the Victorian region of TechnologyOne grew from about $8.4 million for the 2005/06 financial year to about $46.9 million for the 2014/15 financial year.
It also noted that Mr Roohizadegan received the TechnologyOne Chairman's Award in 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Each year that award is given to only four to six of TechnologyOne's approximately 800 to 1,000 employees.
Mr Roohizadegan was granted share options by the company in 2013, 2014 and 2015 in addition to his contracted remuneration.
TechOne founder stood 'with the bullies', judge in original trial said
Justice Kerr had described former TechnologyOne CEO Adrian Di Marco, who is no longer employed by the company, as "deceptive and self-serving if not cruel".
He called Mr Di Marco a "highly unimpressive witness" who gave "tortured and evasive evidence" and had stood "with the bullies rather than the bullied".
The then judge also singled out one of the people Mr Roohizadegan claims he was bullied by — the firm's then-senior executive Stuart MacDonald, who has since been promoted to chief operating officer.
Mr MacDonald allegedly, on more than one occasion, shouted inappropriate and humiliating language at Mr Roohizadegan, including phrases such as, "Screw you Behnam" and "F*** you Behnam".
Justice Kerr said Mr MacDonald "could not be accepted to be a witness of the truth", and that his behaviour towards Mr Roohizadegan was "boorish and abusive".
He said Mr MacDonald only abandoned his dishonest lines of evidence when he was forced to make a "graceless concession" that he had lied in cross examination.
But Justice Kerr said it was ultimately Mr Di Marco – who he described as "the king of the jungle within TechnologyOne" – who made the decision not to investigate the bullying complaint and sack Mr Roohizadegan.
The then judge said that the founder and then-CEO twice rejected professional HR advice that it would be unfair to dismiss Mr Roohizadegan on the basis of "mere allegations".
"Mr Di Marco knew perfectly well that to act without investigation would be unfair and that [HR adviser] Ms Carr's advice was sound," Justice Kerr had said.
However, the full Federal Court, which overturned that decision, said Justice Kerr’s characterisation of Mr Di Marco as a “highly unimpressive” witness should have been weighed against his impressions of the TechnologyOne founder against other evidence.
"In the absence of doing so, his Honour’s bald conclusions that Mr Di Marco’s evidence was at various points said to be 'tortured and evasive', 'disingenuous', 'inherently implausible', 'knowingly untrue' and so on, are of no assistance to the respondent’s case on appeal," the full court said.
A new hearing date for the retrial has been set at the end of September.