Transcript of the Fair Work Decision in Hazledine vs Wakerley

Karren Hazledine made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney-General's Department

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Attorney-General's Department.

Karren Hazledine

Dear Attorney-General's Department,

Please provide a copy of the transcripts for the Fair Works Decision in Hazledine vs Wakerley and Hazledine vs Giddings and Hazledine vs AJG.

This information is in the interest of the public. A full bench made a decision not to proceed with a legitimate Fair Work victimisation Case, with sufficient evidence of discrimination, victimisation, harrassement, sexual harrasment and a sexually hostile environment.

That decision was made on the basis Ms Hazledine was double dipping. Ms Hazledine was seeking disciplinary action against the individuals. In addition, given her losses the amount paid will prove that there was no dipole dipping, Ms Hazledine suffered a severe breakdown and Mr Wakerley has intentionally and with malice defamed Ms Hazledine whilst she was trying to recover. This led to further decay in Ms Hazledines health and well being.

This was supported by Mr Ben Giidings, who was the companies Human Resources Manager.

Both men should be held accountable instead hold senior positions where they can continue to victimise.

Please provide the transcripts.

Yours faithfully,
Karren Hazledine.

FOI Requests, Attorney-General's Department

Dear Ms Hazledine

Freedom of Information Request FOI18/263

I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) for access to documents.

The purpose of this email is to advise you that part of your request has been transferred to another agency.

Under section 16(1) of the FOI Act, a department can transfer part of a request if the requested document is not in the possession of the department but is in the possession of another agency or if the subject matter of the document is more closely connected with the functions of another agency.

Accordingly, on 11 December 2018, the department transferred the following part of your request to the Federal Court:
'a copy of the transcripts for the Fair Works Decision in Hazledine vs AJG.'

In addition, the transcripts of the Full Bench proceedings in C2016/4915 - Hazledine vs Wakerley and Hazledine vs Giddings are publicly available at the following links:

We received your request on 3 December 2018 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. The transfer of your request does not affect the due date for completion of your request. You should therefore expect a decision from the Federal Court by 2 January 2019. However, the statutory period of 30 days may be extended if agency needs to consult third parties or for other reasons. The Federal Court will advise you if this happens.

Given the transcripts for Hazledine vs Wakerley and Hazledine vs Giddings which you have requested are available in the above links, we ask that you please withdraw your request. If we do not hear from you by COB 18 December 2018 we will take your request to have been withdrawn.

If you have any questions, please contact the Attorney-General's Department FOI team by telephone on (02) 6141 6666 or by email [AGD request email].

Yours sincerely
FOI Case Officer

Freedom of Information and Parliamentary | Strategy and Governance Branch Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666| E: [AGD request email]

show quoted sections

External FOI,

1 Attachment


Dear Ms Hazledine,


Please find a letter, attached to this email, in which is recorded a
decision in respect of a request for access to documents pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act 1982.


Kind regards


FOI Officer

Federal Court of Australia


Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

I have said that this application was refused but my reason is a bit complicated. The applicant was involved in a law suit. The suit was heard by a court. The applicant wants a transcript of the proceedings and applied to the Attorney General's Department for a copy of the transcript. The application was made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Attorney General's Department has decided that the application should really be to the Federal Court because the Court will have the information the applicant wants. The Attorney General's Department does not keep the information. So far, this is not a refusal. But FOI Act says that a person cannot get information under the FOI Act if the information (like the court transcript) is available for a fee from the authority. There are arrangements that the Federal Court has to charge a fee form providing transcripts, so the applicant's FOI application will be (or would have been) refused.