OEM "(18 a) Unfortunately for Tiger and Virgin he has the means to fight it all the way to the High Court in Canberra and that is exactly what he has advised he will do."
Consider: with respect - he has advised himself very badly. There are many reasons not to pursue this to the 'ultimate' level; mostly because the total cost is indefinable. The real costs are not financial but paid for from his own well being, happiness and ultimately the family. From experience I can assure you that once the 'obsession' takes hold, much time will be spent identifying tenets, writing copious briefings for counsel and conversational gambits are limited to 'my case' and the intricate details thereof. I have a dear friend who began a legal battle some 20 years ago now; I'll own it's an extreme case, but weekends and evenings spent pouring through case files, legal tomes and precedent have become a way of life, which is not a life. The best results I have seen come from taking 'sound' advice from trusted, competent counsel who will identify 'what' it is you are fighting rather than what you see as the 'fight'. Good counsel likes to win and will take you to a position from where the fight you choose may (with a push) be won.
Does our man want to be reinstated, with an apology? or is he determined, at his own expense to pave the way for the next poor bugger; note, that's the next; not the first and most certainly, not the last. The unions used to be very good at sorting out these sorts of troubles; mostly quietly through negotiation rather than court room brawls; not sure how (or even if) that works anymore. But pick your fight and pick the ground carefully; win one round comprehensively, the rest will flow on. The risk, if you loose is that the other wins and this type of 'entertainment' becomes an accepted practice, supported by a precedent.
If it were me; (IMVH non qualified O) I think I'd tackle the CASA denial of the FOI request first, seems to be the weakest point, particularly if there is any 'hangover' from the subsequent testing proving – no bad habits. Once identified, the miserable piece of dung who kicked this off can personally be stripped of his house; his dog and his Missus may be kicked and used as best pleases. Unfair dismissal rules tend to lean toward those who prove they were, in fact, treated 'unfairly'; this avenue should be approached with caution. The target outcome – financial; as that hurts those who sought to hurt you; and, personal – it will really upset those who perpetrated this offence when you taxi out past the office and flip 'em the two finger salute through the DV window. That's where real satisfaction lives.
As stated, I've seen many 'battles' and nursed a few of the wounded back to sanity. Advice I can stand behind (IMO) is to develop the patience of a rabbit trap; hoard evidence like a miser; get advice on 'who' is the best brief for task then research, very carefully, before you finally chose counsel; stay close to your friends and closer to your family, stay out of the pub, eat your veggies and do not make 'your matter' the sole topic of conversation. Stay detached when you write stuff; pretend it's someone else, "Bloggs" is an old, trusted companion.
I know; all easily said; bloody hard to do. Just the thoughts of a glorified bus driver (magna cum lumpy), offered for what they are worth, in honest support.
This has been a reverse charge call to the school of hard knocks.