Legal Research
Cases
Ridd v James Cook University (No.2)

Ridd v James Cook University (No.2)

Case [2019] FCCA 2489 6 September 2019

Damages

Statutory Construction

Employment Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RIDD v JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY (No.2)

[2019] FCCA 2489

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Assessment of compensation – past economic loss – future economic loss – vicissitudes – general damages – post judgment behaviour – assessment of pecuniary penalties.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.50, 545(2)(b), 557

Cases cited:

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1032
Goldburg v Shell Oil Co of Australia Ltd (1990) 95 ALR 711
Regional Development Australia Murraylands and Riverland Inc v Smith (2015) 251 IR 317
Bryant v Defence Housing Authority [2002] ACTSC 43
Ridd v James Cook University & Ors [2018] FCCA 3080
Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 82 or Hill v Hughes [2019] FCCA 1267
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52
Alexander v Home Office [1988] 1 WLR 968
O’Brien v Dunsdon (1965) 39 ALJR 78
Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Assessment [2015] HCA 46
Mason & Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Pangea Restaurant & Bar [2007] FMCA 7
Sayed v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2016] FCAFC 4

Applicant:

PETER VINCENT RIDD

Respondent:

JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY

File Number:

BRG 1148 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Vasta

Hearing dates:

18 and 19 July 2019

Date of Last Submission:

12 August 2019

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

6 September 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr B. Kidston

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mahoneys

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Y. Shariff assisted by Ms V. Bulut

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

It is declared that the Respondent contravened section 50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by doing each of the following in contravention of clause 14 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2013 - 2016:
(a)making the findings the subject of the formal censure dated 29 April 2016 against the Applicant;
(b)issuing the formal censure dated 29 April 2016 to the Applicant;
(c)directing the Applicant on 29 April 2016 that "[i]n future it is expected that in maintaining your right to make public comment in a professional, expert or individual capacity in an academic field in which you are recognised, it must be in a collegial manner that upholds the University and individual respect.";
(d)making the findings, and each of them, the subject of the final censure dated 21 November 2017 against the Applicant;
(e)directing the Applicant on 24 August 2017 that he was required to keep the disciplinary process confidential;
(f)directing the Applicant on 27 August 2017 that he was required to keep the disciplinary process confidential;
(g)directing the Applicant on 19 September 2017 that he was required “to keep the details of the allegations [the subject of the disciplinary proceeding], and all matters relating thereto (including, but not limited to, the formal censure you received on 29 April 2016), strictly confidential.”;
(h)directing the Applicant on 21 November 2017 that he was required to keep the disciplinary process and the final censure…

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.

Continue reading Ridd v James Cook University (No.2)

Details

AGLC: Ridd v James Cook University (No.2) [2019] FCCA 2489
Case: [2019] FCCA 2489
Decision Date: 6 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ridd v James Cook University (No.2)*, heard in the Federal Court of Australia, the dispute concerned the assessment of compensation for Dr. Ridd, following his successful claim for breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct against James Cook University. The proceedings before Judge Vasta were specifically focused on quantifying the economic loss suffered by Dr. Ridd and determining appropriate penalties.

The court was required to determine the extent of Dr. Ridd's past and future economic loss, taking into account the principle of "vicissitudes" which allows for adjustments to reflect the uncertainties of life and career. Additionally, the court had to assess general damages and consider Dr. Ridd's post-judgment behaviour in its calculations. The assessment of pecuniary penalties for the university's contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law was also a key issue.

Judge Vasta reasoned that the assessment of economic loss must be a realistic appraisal of Dr. Ridd's likely earnings and career progression, adjusted for contingencies. The court applied established principles for assessing damages, including the need to avoid double recovery and to ensure compensation reflects the actual loss suffered. The consideration of post-judgment conduct was relevant to the overall assessment of the university's culpability and the appropriate quantum of damages and penalties. The court ultimately made orders for the payment of compensation and penalties by James Cook University to Dr. Ridd.

Orders