RIDD MAY GO TO HIGH COURT

Ridd ruling overturned

EMBATTLED professor Peter Ridd is understood to be considering a High Court challenge after James Cook University won an appeal against his $1.2m unfair dismissal case.

Dr Ridd was sacked from his job of almost 30 years with the Townsville-based university in May 2018, after he publicly criticised what he described as a lack of quality assurance and misleading, deficient and sensationalist Great Barrier Reef research being produced by the university.

In September, the Federal Circuit Court ordered JCU to pay more than $1.2m in damages and penalties, finding it had unlawfully contravened its enterprise agreement 13 times, including by censuring and sacking the professor. But yesterday the university won an appeal against the decision.

EMBATTLED Queensland professor Peter Ridd is understood to be considering a High Court challenge after James Cook University won an appeal against his $1.2m unfair dismissal case.

Dr Ridd was sacked from his job of almost 30 years with the Townsville-based university in May, 2018 after he publicly criticised the university’s climate change science in relation to the Great Barrier Reef — labelling it misleading, deficient and sensationalist.

In September, the Federal Circuit Court ordered JCU to pay more than $1.2m in damages and penalties, finding the university had unlawfully contravened its enterprise agreement 13 times, including by censuring and sacking the professor.

But the university yesterday won an appeal against the decision with the full bench of the Federal Court allowing the appeal and setting aside Federal Circuit Court Judge Salvatore Vasta’s September ruling.

In its decision, the bench, comprising Justice John Griffiths, Justice Darryl Rangiah and Justice Sarah Derrington, said the matter to decide was whether the Enterprise Agreement gave Dr Ridd the right to express his professional opinions in whatever manner he chose, unconstrained by the behavioural standards imposed by the Code of Conduct, provided his conduct did not harass, vilify, bully or intimidate.

They found the Enterprise Agreement did not allow it and therefore the termination of his employment did not contravene the Fair Work Act.

At trial, Dr Ridd argued he was exercising his right to intellectual freedom in accordance with the Enterprise Agreement.

Justice Rangiah recommended the case be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for a new hearing upon the same evidence but with particular reference to the issue of whether JCU’S common law right as an employer to give lawful and reasonable directions to an employee concerning confidentiality provided an alternative basis to one of the Confidentiality Directions clauses.

But Justices Griffith and Derrington disagreed.

The Institute of Public Affairs, which has publicly supported Dr Ridd throughout the legal battle, said the court’s decision was a “devastating blow” against freedom of speech.

“We understand that Dr Ridd is now considering his legal options in relation to a challenge in the High Court of Australia,” IPA director of policy Gideon Rozner said.