Visit our Popular Forums

RaymondR · 06-09-2019, 03:28

Professor Peter Ridd of James Cook University at Cairns in Northern Queensland in Australia was fired from his position for criticizing the poor quality of a number of research papers on the Great Barrier Reef.

Professor Rid took a case to court fir unfair dismissal. The court found that he had been unfairly dismissed and deferred a finding of damages to a later date.

Today the court set compensation at A$ 1.2 million.

**StuM** · 06-09-2019, 03:37

JCU ordered to pay Peter Ridd over $1.2 million.

Full Orders and Reasons For Judgement here:

https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com...-fcca-2489.pdf

It makes interesting reading

**GordMay** · 11-09-2019, 02:42

Federal circuit court judge Salvatore Vasta handed down a penalty on Friday, and ordered the university to pay Ridd more than $1.2m for lost income, lost future income and pecuniary penalties.
The university was ordered to pay $1,094,214.47 as compensation, and $125,000 in pecuniary penalties for Dr. Ridd.
The university can now appeal the ruling, within the next three weeks, in the Federal Court.

The case has been repeatedly framed, in media reports, as one about academic freedom, or about the validity of the minority and controversial views, held by Ridd, about climate change and the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
Vasta made clear in his judgment in April those matters were not on trial.
“Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom,” he said. “Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views."
“Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”

**GordMay** · 11-09-2019, 04:54

Note the several directions the court imposed upon Professor Ridd (the Applicant), in the award ruling:
Judge Vasta's Ruling (Order) ➥ https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Fe...cument/1462042

In an unrelated matter, in July, Judge Vasta was relieved of some of his circuit court duties, and required to receive counseling from a senior judge after appeal against a conviction in which the full Federal Court of the Family Court called Judge Vasta's conduct of the case "an affront to justice".
Judge Vasta has been the subject of numerous complaints to the court, including by the nation’s peak legal body, the Law Council of Australia. Judge Vasta, who was a crown prosecutor before joining the court, has a reputation for making basic errors of fact and law, being rude to litigants, taking over cross-examinations, making orders on his own motion, and wrongly sending those who question him to jail for contempt. It has led to speculation he could be Australia's worst judge.
➥ Judging Vasta | Inside Story
➥ https://www.nationalcriminallawyers....e-scrutinised/

**StuM** · 11-09-2019, 05:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Note the several directions the court imposed upon Professor Ridd (the Applicant), in the award ruling:

Please identify even one direction imposed by the court upon the applicant in that ruling.

It would appear that you have totally misunderstood the whole ruling. The only "directions" there are the long list of directions that the court found that JCU unlawfully imposed on Ridd.

**GordMay** · 11-09-2019, 05:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

... It would appear that you have totally misunderstood the whole ruling. The only "directions" there are the long list of directions that the court found that JCU unlawfully imposed on Ridd.

Stu is absolutely correct - I was WRONG!
My apologies, for misleading the Forum.
How embarrassing.

RaymondR · 11-09-2019, 21:18

Whilst the judge may have stated that:

"Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”

the context is the ongoing battle between the catastrophist and those concerned with the integrity of the scientific method. Ridd's objection was not to the fact of scientific studies and papers but to the lack of objectivity of a number of them. He objected to sloppy work and the resulting THE REEF IS DEAD headlines they engender.

JCU interpreted the subject clause of the agreement as allowing them to dismiss the employee from his job, the employee, Ridd, that it did not. The judge agrees with Ridd.

Since it is a clause written in English pretty well anyone with a reasonable standard of English should be able to interpret it correctly.

RaymondR · 11-02-2021, 18:03

Yesterday The High Court of Australia chose to hear the appeal in the Ridd case.

The hearing will take place later this year.

RaymondR · 19-06-2021, 01:38

The High Court of Australia begins it's hearing of the Ridd case this coming Wednesday. In that Australia is a common law country as are most of the predominately English speaking countries and precedents set in one common law country are often effective in others the case has a significance in more than just Australian legal jurisdictions.

In addition Rudd's original crime, according to his protagonist in the case, was his offense in not giving collegiality priority over scientific integrity in climate science matters regarding the Great Barrier Reef. Climate science is a fairly active and common subject herein.

steve77 · 19-06-2021, 04:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Stu is absolutely correct - I was WRONG!
My apologies, for misleading the Forum.
How embarrassing.

This is why Gord is a stand up guy. Make a mistake, big deal. Just recognize it, apologize, and move on.

Good on you, Gord! Cheers!

Steve

LittleWing77 · 19-06-2021, 05:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve77

This is why Gord is a stand up guy. Make a mistake, big deal. Just recognize it, apologize, and move on.

Good on you, Gord! Cheers!

Steve

And he's a Master Marine Mechanic (ret) as well. Probably has forgotten more than any of us ever knew about marine engines.

Yes, our Gord is a multi-talent guy!

LittleWing77

**GordMay** · 19-06-2021, 05:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleWing77

1. And he's a Master Marine Mechanic (ret) as well.
2. Probably has forgotten more than any of us.

1: Wrong - was an electrician.
2: Possible true.

LittleWing77 · 19-06-2021, 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

1: Wrong - was an electrician.
2: Possible true.

Whoops! A-hem.

Is a Master ELECTRICIAN (ret) and has forgotten more than any of us ever knew in the first place...!

I meant that as a compliment, Gord, but I'm notorious for getting sayings like this backwards. Did I say it wrong?

Grateful for you,
LittleWing77