The $55M Reality Check: Lessons from the TechnologyOne Re-trial

This saga began in 2020 with a former senior executive at TechnologyOne claiming he was dismissed for making workplace complaints. He was awarded a record-breaking $5.2 million in a General Protections (GP) case. It was a verdict that sent shockwaves through HR departments nationwide. 

The executive eventually sought a staggering $55 million in the subsequent legal fallout, claiming his career and mental health were "totally ruined." 

But on 18 December 2025, that narrative hit a wall. The Federal Court didn't just overturn the award; it dismissed the claim entirely. This isn’t just a legal win; it’s a system reset. It marks the end of "Lottery Logic" and a return to a landscape where documented facts outweigh speculative claims. 

Before we dive into the verdict, we must look at the environment that created it. The "Lottery Logic" isn't just a theory; it is reflected in a massive spike in filings across the country.  

_{Source: Safe Work Australia, Key Work Health and Safety Statistics 2025.}

The chart above illustrates the aggressive upward trajectory of these claims, highlighting the 57% surge in recent filings compared to the three-year average.

The heart of this six-year battle was a claim of "total ruin." An executive alleged that their termination was a targeted strike against their mental health and workplace rights, seeking $55 million in damages for future economic loss.  

However, the Court’s final verdict provided a cold splash of reality: Being unwell does not grant a permanent shield against professional standards.  

The Judge concluded that while the individual’s dedication was "obsessional" and their health was suffering, the decision to terminate was driven by performance, not bias. This draws a bold line for 2026: Employers can, and must, be able to manage business outcomes, even in the most sensitive human scenarios.  

In Australia, General Protections claims are a legal pincer movement. Under the Fair Work Act, the Reverse Onus of Proof means an employer is effectively guilty until they prove their innocence.  

The employer won this battle because they had the receipts; they provided rock-solid evidence that the termination was a calculated business move based on documented performance gaps. They didn't just have a reason; they had a narrative of governance that the court could not ignore.  

This verdict acts as a chilling effect on the surge seen in the data above:  

• Forensic Auditing of Loss: Claims that "my life is over" will now be tested under a high-intensity microscope. Subjective feelings of being "ruined" no longer equal an objective payout.  
• The Costs War: In a rare move, the Court is now considering making the claimant pay millions in legal costs. This is a warning shot to "no-win, no-fee" firms, the "Lottery Logic" is now a high-stakes gamble.  
• Commercial Proportionality: Spending six years in court for a dismissed claim is a failure of strategy. This case forces a return to the Commercial North Star, resolving disputes before they become "ghosts."  

Resilience isn't just about surviving a civil case; it’s about Defensible Leadership. This victory wasn't won in the courtroom in 2025; it was won years earlier in the meeting rooms where managers took the time to document the "why."  

At Knightcorp, we don’t just place your insurance; we help you build the frameworks that ensure your decisions survive a multi-million-dollar microscope. Is your termination and performance management process a safety net or a trapdoor?  

_Disclaimer 

_{This article is general information only and does not constitute advice or take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Information may reference third-party content; Knightcorp Insurance Brokers does not endorse or accept responsibility for external material. For advice specific to your insurance needs, please contact Knightcorp Insurance Brokers.}