Watson v Durham University
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Jacob,Lord Justice Lawrence Collins,Mr Justice Hedley,Lord Justice Sedley |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Civ 698,[2008] EWCA Civ 1266 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2008/0437 |
| Date | 24 October 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 1266
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE WALTON)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Sedley
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins and
Mr Justice Hedley
Case No: A2/2008/0437
Mr O Hyams (instructed directly by Professor Watson) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr P Epstein QC (instructed by Pinsent Masons) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Introduction
For any person to be suspended from his or her employment pending the investigation of allegations of misconduct is a serious matter. It casts a shadow over the employee, and suspension is particularly serious if the person involved holds a public position or, as in this case, a position in higher education and especially so if the suspension drags on for an extended period while investigations are being made or a disciplinary process is being pursued.
The claimant, Professor Robert Watson, has been a professor at Durham University Business School since 2004. The defendant is Durham University, and this application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow if permission granted, arises from his unsuccessful attempt to obtain an injunction restraining the university from continuing the suspension from duty which it imposed on 17 December 2007.
The background
The circumstances of Professor Watson's suspension begin with the events which led to the resignation of Professor Antonios Antoniou, who was until September 2007, the Dean of the Business School. Professor Antoniou stood down as the Dean on 4 September 2007 following allegations of plagiarism against him which were made a few months earlier. The allegations related to the PhD which he had obtained from York University, of which he was stripped in November 2007, and to a journal article written when he was at Brunel University.
After Professor Antoniou stood down as Dean on 6 September 2007 Professor Christopher Higgins, the Vice Chancellor and Warden of Durham University, had a meeting with all business school staff to discuss interim management arrangements. Professor Higgins says that Professor Watson was present at that meeting and raised queries about the allegations against Professor Antoniou but was told that details should not be made public and that the matter should not be discussed internally or externally in order not to prejudice any investigation. A week or two later, Professor Higgins attended a Business School Board of Studies meeting where he again emphasised that matters concerning Professor Antoniou should not be discussed internally or externally and that indirect accusation or harassment of those associated with Professor Antoniou was inappropriate.
The story regarding Professor Watson begins around 22 October 2007 when Mr Boyd, the director of HR at the university, reported to Professor Higgins that he had been informed of certain allegations against Professor Watson and, in particular, that he had made racist comments, comments against Professor Antoniou and had been criticising the university's handling of the Antoniou affair. A few days later Mr Boyd and Professor Higgins met Professor Watson and confronted him with these allegations, which he denied. The Antoniou affair became public on 2 November 2007 when The Times Higher Educational Supplement reported that he had been suspended and faced disciplinary action concerning the journal article written when he was at Brunel and that York University was investigating plagiarism in his PhD thesis.
Professor Higgins, in his witness statement, says that on 5 November 2007 he and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Professor Stirling, addressed the Business School Board of Studies and told them that the publications of those who had worked with Professor Antoniou were valid and should be included in the research assessment exercise and that discussion and comment about those associated with Professor Antoniou would constitute harassment.
Professor Higgins says that on about 10 November 2007 he was contacted by a junior academic who wished to see him following his statement to the meeting, and a few days later Mr Boyd, the director of HR, and Professor Higgins met the junior academic, Mr Alexandridis, who claimed, according to Professor Higgins' witness statement, harassment, bullying and racist comments by Professor Watson. There is a file note of this meeting, the main elements of which, so far as Professor Watson's comments are concerned, are about the allegations of plagiarism.
Around this time, for reasons which are not explained in the papers, the university began to make enquiries about the genuineness of Professor Watson's PhD from Manchester University and from 22 November —and the date is of some significance —Mr Boyd was in contact with the Durham University librarian about Professor Watson's PhD; and the enquiries consisted of, it seems from the various e-mails, looking up databases of the British Library and of Manchester University to see if there was a relevant thesis by a Robert Watson. This seemed to me a rather peculiar way of investigating whether somebody had a PhD from the University, when the obvious way of finding out was not databases about theses, but taking steps to see whether the degree had been awarded.
On 26 November 2007 another junior academic, Emilios Gariolitis, also met Mr Boyd and made some allegations about Professor Watson, which were said to constitute racist remarks. Again the file note of the meeting is mainly concerned with Professor Watson's comments about the association of the academic with Professor Antoniou and his plagiarism, but the file note also indicates that the academic said about a female colleague: “Who does she think she is —just because she sleeps with the Dean —Madam Mao?” And that is said, because that was said in earshot of someone who might have been Chinese, to be a racist remark. It seems to me that, although it may have been extremely insulting to the person involved to be classified as someone sinister behind the scenes, nothing could be further from a racist remark.
On 3 December the e-mails about Professor Watson's PhD, which were circulating internally, culminated in an email from Mr Boyd of HR to the Registrar, which said:
“I have spoken to Simon Parker this afternoon [I think he is a member of the staff at the Business School]. Apparently there is a Robert Watson with a PhD from Manchester in 1994 but in Physics. This Robert Watson has a different middle initial from our RW, who apparently has a middle initial of E. Not sure what this stands for…and so I will need to check our USS records as it's not in his CV. Other developments are that his PhD title is apparently the same as an MSc he supervised, which in the absence of dates begs the question of who was plagiarising whom!”
The later allegation of Professor Watson not having a PhD is in fact said by Professor Higgins to have originated on 11 December, when he received an anonymous letter suggesting that Professor Watson did not have a PhD, but in fact it is quite apparent from these e-mails that the University was investigating this question from at least 22 November.
On 11 and 12 December Professor Higgins left telephone messages with Professor Watson with a view, he says, to further discussing the question of whether Professor Watson had a PhD, and on 12 December, having failed to reach Professor Watson, he sent an e-mail which said:
“I have tried to contact you by phone and have left messages but have had no response. Additionally, your Head of Department says you have not requested permission to be absent from Durham so I must assume you are available.
I have had a written allegation that you have not got a PhD as claimed on your cv. The University will be investigating this and taking action as a matter of urgency unless you can quickly dispel this allegation with proof of your degree.
Additionally we suspect that rumours of this allegation may begin to circulate within [the Business School] and so, if there is no substance to the allegation it is critical to clarify immediately to protect your reputation.”
Professor Higgins says that, when he received no reply, he contacted Professor Watson at home, when Professor Watson agreed to produce a copy of his certificate, and on 13 December Professor Watson did submit a copy of his degree certificate.
On 16 December Professor Watson sent an e-mail which was addressed to Professor Higgins, with copies among others to Mr Boyd, but also, judging from the address, to a large number of people at the Business School, and since this e-mail is of some significance in the later events I shall quote some paragraphs of it:
“Though I began to feel that life had taken something of a Kafkaesque turn, undeterred I provided the University with the contact details of the external examiners and a copy of the PhD certificate. I contacted Manchester's Registrar on Friday morning and within two hours they were able to confirm that I did indeed have a PhD.
The Manchester University officials that I spoke to were horrified at the suggestion that anyone at the University would have given any (even true) information out over the phone regarding anyone's academic record —it is illegal under the Data Protection Act. Moreover, Manchester has launched an official investigation into the incident but are very confident (because all phone calls are logged) that no one from Durham actually phoned or was given information about my PhD...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ishmael v Queen Elizabeth Hospital Board
...was entitled was in the region of $600,000.00. In making this submission, counsel relied solely upon the case of Watson v. Durham [2008] EWCA Civ 1266. GENERAL AND NOMINAL DAMAGES 100 The Court will deal first with the issue of damages generally and then that of aggravated or punitive damag......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2017-05-03, AA/12700/2015
...and reasonableness of return. He told me that the Judge had not carried out a sliding scale analysis. He relied on QD & AH v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 698. (c) Mr Bandegani told me that the consideration of risk, either in terms of article 3 ECHR or article 15(c) of the qualification directive, ......
-
Belize Telemedia Ltd v Arnold et Al
...if there is a good arguable case in the claim on the merit - see Ali v. Southwark London Borough Council [1988] I.C.R. 567, and Watson v. Durham University [2008] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1266. 22 Third, if after applying the guideline as to whether award of damages will be adequate remedy court is st......
-
MacAulay and Others v Newham LBC and Another
...one side. 21 I turn, therefore, to the substance of the claim. It is helpful to start by referring to the judgment of Collins LJ in Watson v Durham University [2008] EWCA Civ 1266. That was a case in which Professor Watson sought an injunction requiring Durham University to lift a suspensio......