Ridd v James Cook University - [2021] HCATrans 110

[2021] HCATrans 110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B12 of 2021

B e t w e e n -
PETER VINCENT RIDD
Appellant
and
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
GAGELER J
KEANE J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE 2021, AT 10.02 AM

MR S.J. WOOD, QC: If it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR B.W. JELLIS and MS C. MINTZ, for the appellant. (instructed by Mahoneys)

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR Y. SHARIFF, SC and MS V. BULUT, for the respondent. (instructed by Clayton Utz)

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, Mr Wood.

MR WOOD: Thank you, your Honour. Does the Court have our three‑page outline?

KIEFEL CJ: We do, thank you.

MR WOOD: The central issue on this appeal is how does the enterprise agreement resolve a conflict between the general obligations imposed by the code of conduct and the specific protection of intellectual freedom in clause 14. The appellant contends that the intellectual freedom right is not subject to, or qualified by, the code. It is therefore not misconduct, or serious misconduct, under the enterprise agreement to exercise a right recognised by the enterprise agreement.

Our submissions are in two parts: firstly, on the point of construction; and secondly, on the consequences of construction. We say six things on the point of construction. First, the intellectual freedom right must be construed in light of its history and purpose. Intellectual freedom furthers the purpose of both the University and its employees. It allows for the pursuit of truth by the robust clash of ideas within broad limits. Intellectual freedom is an ancient principle foundational to a university. The freedom was significant to the makers of the enterprise agreement as shown by its inclusion in the statutory agreement.

The Full Court was wrong to put history and purpose to one side. The right should not be read as if unimportant to the enterprise and its employees. The Full Court said there was little more than historical interest in the purpose. They said there is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts. They said there is no common understanding, that is, the majority, of the full breadth of academic freedom. There is of course no common understanding about the concept in its full breadth, but at its core, the concept is not devoid of meaning, as Justice Rangiah said in dissent.

Second, and this is crucial, the code and the intellectual freedom right conflict with each other. The code of conduct is a prohibition. It prohibits employees from doing certain things. It is the vehicle, or gateway, to disciplinary action by the University. Intellectual freedom in the agreement is a permission, a freedom, a right. It is a right conferred upon employees that is a protection from the University. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ridd v James Cook University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] HCATrans 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning a dispute between Dr. Ridd and James Cook University. Dr. Ridd, a marine biologist, alleged that the University had breached his employment contract and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law* by failing to properly investigate his complaints about research misconduct and by imposing restrictions on his research activities.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the University had breached its contractual obligations to Dr. Ridd, particularly regarding its duty to investigate allegations of research misconduct and its obligations concerning the publication of his research, and whether the University's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the *Australian Consumer Law*. The Court also considered the proper interpretation of the employment agreement between the parties and the scope of the University's disciplinary and administrative powers.

The High Court found that the University had breached its contractual obligations to Dr. Ridd by failing to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations of research misconduct and by imposing unreasonable restrictions on his research. The Court held that the University's actions were not justified by the terms of the employment contract and that the University had acted in contravention of its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Furthermore, the Court determined that the University's conduct in its dealings with Dr. Ridd, particularly in relation to the publication of his research and the handling of his complaints, amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under the *Australian Consumer Law*. The Court reasoned that the University had made representations about its processes and its intentions that were not borne out by its subsequent actions, thereby misleading Dr. Ridd.

The High Court allowed Dr. Ridd's appeal, setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court of Queensland for determination of the appropriate remedies.

Orders