A former IT worker who accused his employer of breaching whistleblower protections has been left to pick up their costly legal bill after 'unreasonably' rejecting its offer of a six-figure settlement. 

Abhishek Mishra has been ordered by the Victorian Supreme Court to cover part of the National Broadband Network's legal costs - which could well be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - after an unsuccessful bid to sue them. 

The ruling follows four years of back-and-forth bargaining, with Mishra seeking settlement for 'psychiatric injury' caused when the state-owned broadband provider allegedly threatened to end his employment. 

The claim, first filed in February 2022, alleged that NBN had threatened to end Mishra's employment because it suspected him of whistleblowing activity.  

Global consulting giant Ernst and Young was previously a co-defendant in the proceedings, before it reached settlement with Mishra the day before the hearing. 

In his original claim, Mishra also sought relief for outstanding tax and amounts he was entitled to under his employment contract.

In June 2022, EY and NBN jointly made the first of five settlement attempts, offering $210,000 along with covering any tax liabilities incurred by Mishra either in Australia or India.

A month later, Mishra's solicitors wrote back to NBN and EY requesting a settlement in excess of $8million. 

This seven-figure settlement request included a redundancy payout, $40,000 for relocation expenses, $86,000 for a lost opportunity to invest in property, $4,990,274 for loss of future income, and $3,000,000 compensation for the harm caused to his wellbeing.

It also sought payment of six years' worth of tax liabilities from 2017 to 2022. 

In August 2023, Mishra doubled down on his requests, filing in the Supreme Court a breakdown of loss and damages, including $438,600 for future healthcare costs, and one year's salary as 'payment in lieu of reasonable notice'.  

At about the same time, defence witnesses gave evidence that showed Mishra's termination from NBN was not related to any belief or suspicion that he made a 'whistleblower disclosure'.

NBN also successfully sought a summary dismissal for Mishra's damages claim, on the basis it had no real chance of success. However, this was overturned in a court win for Mishra, who appealed the ruling and revived his claim in May 2025.

A second suggested settlement put forward by EY and NBN in May 2024 was for $150,000 and an offer to cover any tax penalties Mishra owed in India arising from his NBN income.

In making their offer, both EY and NBN warned Mishra's solicitors of the high likelihood his claims would fail and identified the 'observed' weaknesses of his claim.

The defendants said the offer would be accompanied by a deed of settlement which would include any mutual releases between the parties and appropriate confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses. 

This second offer lapsed on May 29 after two weeks with no response.  

Then on June 2, Mishra's solicitors formally rejected this latest offer, and instead proposed a $915,000 counter-offer with a $510,000 mental health support package for Mishra's 'severe mental health issues'.

In a letter, Mishra's solicitors indicated their client was prepared to execute a deed of release 'in relation to confidentiality' and to negotiate 'further fair and reasonable settlement terms'.

The letter also mentioned an 'outstanding issue' regarding a storage container. 

While this proposed counter-offer was also unsuccessful, NBN and EY then increased the settlement to $180,000 with an extra $6,000 to cover Mishra's storage facility costs as a 'gesture of goodwill'. 

NBN and EY's solicitors advised this counter-offer was 'generous in [the] circumstances' pointing out Mishra's personal injury claim - which made up the majority of his damages bid - had been dismissed and his claim for payment in lieu of notice was unsupported by his contract.

On 4 August, Mr Mishra's solicitors made another bargaining attempt - this time offering to settle for $775,000, a sum which would cover the costs relating to long-term psychiatric treatment, medication, carer support, comprehensive health insurance and kids-related expenses.

Mishra's solicitors also raised the possibility of a deed of settlement including confidentiality and an 'agreed statement of resolution' to provide a 'positive PR focus' for EY and NBN.

By October, Mishra had lowered his settlement offer to $665,000 while EY and NBN had come to the table with $240,000, a figure they said was 'purely commercial' and in the interest of ending the proceedings. 

They also remarked that Mishra's latest settlement bid was still 'manifestly excessive' and bore no reasonable relationship to the merits of his claim.

A fourth offer of $300,000, which included terms for a deed of settlement with confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, also lapsed in November 2024.  

On February 20, 2026, four years after Mishra's original claim, EY and NBN made their fifth and final offer - putting $400,000 on the table.

In setting out this final settlement attempt, EY and NBN warned Mishra's solicitors  that their client's claim did not establish 'any plausible basis' and 'will fail'.

They also pointed to the 'extensive documentary evidence' demonstrating that Mishra had not been terminated over concerns or suspicions related to whistleblowing activity.

Nearly two weeks after the final offer had lapsed, Mishra's solicitors wrote back, this time seeking $3million, representing a 352 per cent increase from their last offer in October.

This offer lapsed with no response; however, on March 16, 2026, the day before the trial was scheduled to commence, Mr Mishra reached a settlement with EY only.

Over the four-day hearing, Justice Watson described Mishra's claim as 'an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole' and as 'fundamentally mismatched' to the available evidence and statutory requirements for whistleblower provisions. 

The court also heard Mishra's pleadings did not establish a legal or factual basis showing how NBN Co failed in its contractual obligations regarding his relocation expenses and payment in lieu of reasonable notice.

While Justice Watson did not find Mishra's rejection of the second and third offers unreasonable, he stated there was 'no doubt it was imprudent'.

However, Justice Watson found NBN's fourth settlement offer was 'a genuine attempt to compromise' and Mishra's rejection of it was 'an unreasonable act' which incurred extra costs.

Mishra had argued he was unable to accept the fourth and fifth offers as his solicitor was not willing to provide a warranty for his capacity to enter into a settlement.

Given the offers contained a 'condition precedent' he was unable to fulfil, Mishra argued his rejection could not be seen as unreasonable. 

Justice Watson did not accept this argument, and said Mishra had not demonstrated the offer as being incapable of acceptance. 

Mishra was ordered by the court to pay NBN's costs on a standard basis from when their fourth offer lapsed in November 2024.