In Evangeline Liakos v Regain Occupational Therapy Pty Ltd T/A Cloud Nine Paediatric Therapy Services [2022] FWC 1463 the Commission states
[23] On 29 October 2021, the Respondent received an email from the Applicant attaching a letter, and further five-page attachment, and a document titled “Notice of Demand for Further and Better Particulars” that was in the following terms:
“Date. 29 October 2021
The rule of law is fundamental in maintaining a free and fair society that supports the provision for men and women, should they incur harm. loss. or injury from another, to access restorative processes pursuant to the United Nations Charter.
I, Evangaline of the House Liakos, am deeply concerned about the employer-mandated COVID-19 injection procedure insisted upon myself by Amisha Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as “Amisha”), Director of Regain Occupational Therapy Pty Ltd trading as Cloud Nine Paediatric Therapy Services (hereinafter referred to as “Cloud Nine”).
In order for me to be fully informed to empower me to give informed consent it is my will that I be provided with all of the following information, and documentary evidence:
The lawful basis upon which you rely requiring me to be vaccinated against COVID-·19 in order to work; Documentary evidence of the relevant Instrument of Delegation held by Amisha, as required under the Federal Crimes Act 1914 3ZZIA;
Documentary evidence held by Amisha, or by Cloud Nine, of any and all health and safety advice received as well as medical and scientific data held by Amisha or Cloud Nine, evidencing that the COVID-19 injections are safe, and that no men or women have lost their lives nor suffered from any adverse reactions as a result;
The risk assessments (a minimum of four) performed by Amisha, including documentary evidence of material risks of COVID-19 transmissions ,by any, “vaccinated” or by any unvaccinated man or woman presenting at work;
The legal status of the trial/experimental COVID-19 injections which have been approved for mandating by Cloud Nine;
Documentary evidence that the experimental COVID-19 injection have been fully independently, and rigorously tested against control groups, and the subsequent outcomes of those tests;
The entire list and toxicity of the ingredients that are contained in the COVID-19 injection, including proprietary components. and confirmation that the COVID-19 injection is not a trial/experimental mRNA gene-altering therapy:
A certified true copy of the proclamation certificate with the appropriate assent in respect of your mandate;
Written confirmation that Amisha Gandhi, as Director of Cloud Nine. in her personal and unlimited capacity, is and will be taking full responsibility and liability for any and all adverse events resulting from the COVID-19 injections including any harm. loss, or injury immediately or in the future, as a consequence being mandated to take me COVID-19 injection as per Amisha and Cloud Nine’s directions;
The confirmation that, I will not be under duress from yourself and/or Cloud Nine in compliance with the Nuremberg Code 1947;
Evidence of an official statement from the Australian Government confirming that the announcement by Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison MP, on the 6''' of August 2021 that “informed consent is needed” before the COVID-19 injection is administered upon an individual, has been rescinded by the Australian Government;
Evidence that alternative work arrangements, or controls that are available to employers and employees to maintain Occupational Health & Safety, as well as Public Safety, as directed by the Fair Work Ombudsman, has been duly considered by Amisha and/or Cloud Nine;
Documentary evidence proving that all relevant treatments for COVID-19 and alternative methods for its remedy were thoroughly investigated and reported by independent research conducted by Amisha or by Cloud Nine;
The evidence of accuracy and reliability of the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing of the Rapid Antigent Testing and any evidence that such tests cause no harm, damage or irreversible short-term of long-term side-effects;
For acceptance of the itemised evidence requests listed in this notice, such evidence must also be signed by a qualified physician or qualified health practitioner who will also take full legal and financial responsibility for any injury occurring to myself, from any interaction by authorised persons in relation to the experimental procedure, vaccination schedule, or immunisation programs based around the COVID-19 injections.
This notice and seal are written in accordance with the Partnership Act 1890.
All above documentary requirements are to be supplied to me in written format within 72 hours upon receiving this notice. Furthermore, your agreement that I will not incur prejudice or discrimination. nor will my employment be compromised is required in written format within 72 hours upon receiving this notice.
Your silence is your Consent
By Evangaline of the House Liakos
Principal, Executive Beneficiary and
Authorised Representative
for and of the Crown
copyright name and estate: :EVANGALINE LIAKOS
ens legis and all derivatives thereof the legal name
No assured value; No liability all Errors and Omissions Excepted for value, and
All Rights Reserved
WITHOUT PREJUDICE - WITHOUT RECOURSE -
NON-ASSUMPSIT - WITHOUT VEXATION
Calls may be recorded
End of notification”
That was unpersuasive and the Commission held that dismissal of Liakos was not unfair.
In Cromie v Health Secretary in respect of the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2022] NSWIRComm 1064 the Commission states
Katherine Cromie was employed as an Enrolled Nurse at the Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital (“Hospital”), which falls under the auspices of the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District (“ISLHD”). On 7 December 2021 Ms Cromie’s employment was terminated on the basis that she had not demonstrated that she had been vaccinated against COVID-19 or had an exemption due to a medical contraindication. She commenced proceedings pursuant to s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, alleging that her dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust. She seeks reinstatement to her position.
She was represented by Stephen Lymbery, who in one of the Falamaki judgments was characterised as
the person present in Court who identified himself as Stephen-Mark: Lymbery stating that he was also Judge, Postmaster and Banker
alongside OPCA exponent 'Judge: David-Wynn: Miller'.
In considering the grounds on which Ms Cromie relies the Commission states
[16] In very large part, the evidence and submissions on which Ms Cromie relies are directed towards challenging the legality, validity or enforceability of PHO 1 and PHO 2, and by extension the Determination which flowed from them. Indeed, Ms Cromie sought to challenge the validity of the legislation pursuant to which the public health orders and the Determination were made. The information contained in Ms Cromie’s “Notice and Knowledge” bundle of documents was said by Mr Lymbery to demonstrate that “all legislation in this country is unconstitutional”.
All, apparently, rather than merely that dealing with public health orders
[17] It is apparent from the material prepared by Mr Lymbery on Ms Cromie’s behalf that he has devoted a significant amount of time in the presentation of her case. I acknowledge the care which he has taken to do so. However, as Mr Lymbery himself acknowledged at several times during the hearing, the Commission is not the place in which these matters can be determined. As Commissioner Murphy observed in Griffin and others v Health Secretary; Thorncraft and others v Secretary of the Department of Education [2022] NSWIRComm 1027 (“Griffin”): “37. I note that, whilst a considerable bulk of the submissions by some parties went to the validity and/or legality and/or enforceability of the Public Health Orders and Determinations set out at [10]-[21] above, this Commission is not the forum in which to agitate such matters. These instruments will be accepted in this jurisdiction as valid and enforceable pieces of delegated legislation unless and until found to be otherwise in another place.”
[18] I observe in any event that the arguments on which Ms Cromie relies to challenge the validity or enforceability of the public health orders have been disposed of by the Supreme Court: Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320, upheld in Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299.
Cromie lost.
