Dr. Peter Ridd wins $1.2 million judgment – appeal possible

Here’s another good one from the judgement:
“Professor Ridd was even more humiliated when JCU decided to trawl through all of the emails that he had both sent and received on his university email account. There was simply no call for such draconian action. There was no evidence that JCU routinely did this form of audit on all persons who have JCU email accounts. To do so here borders on paranoia and hysteria fuelled by systemic vindictiveness.”

First reading of Dr Ridd’s desire to leave some funds aside for the use of others, rather himself,it seems that the court may have erred in its calculation of Future Economic Loss.
The flaw is in the starting paragraph 26 ‘Decide the period that should be covered by future economic loss.’
Further the decision in Paragraph 33 is to be procedurally fair,to only allow what Dr Ridd claimed for in lost work.
However, by doing this, the court fails to identify a major head of compensation, ie Opportunity Cost.
In Dr Ridd’s case this would be what he would have achieved during his last years at JCU and subsequently as an Internationally respected scientist, were he not embroiled in this conflicted situation.
In para 53 its true he ‘could not set up a private consulting business’ without the ‘proper ‘equipment’
However that loss is not caused by him.
JCU has effectively placed him in ‘internal exile’, by denying him the tools necessary to start such a transition.
Were he on good terms, and in the interest of scientific endeavour and reef science itself, an accommodating JCU would invite him to share facilities and promote the university.
I think back to my late, great accountant who was senior lecturer in economics at a sandstone university.
Well into his eighties he was still reviewing work,giving guest lectures and being invited to international symposia to give key advice on the then troubled economic times.
The adult in the room.
By besmirching his name, [para 84], JCU has prevented Dr Ridd from exploring such avenues within JCU under an enlightened administration, while ensuring he will stop his research elsewhere.
Para 33 is very generous to JCU.
Despite Dr Ridd’s stated intentions his future employment itself may well have been longer.
The Federal Government has already moved the goalposts to a retirement age of 65.5 years, with the expectation of future incentives to keep the ‘aged’ working, such as super breaks and incrementally biennial delayed dates for retirement.
Its not up to him entirely.

There are reasons that become apparent to us all as we age, that work is health giving for many, particularly directed, capable and committed scientists who enjoy their work and challenge the geist to strive for better.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/working-later-in-life-can-pay-off-in-more-than-just-income
Were there trust in his relationship with JCU he arguably would be working long and happily adding lustre to the Establishment.cf para 99.
But for that trust and freedom, {cf 99,105} he lost an opportunity to work long and happily both within and externally to JCU beyond some arbitrary age, preselected by regulation and current volition.
Just because he does not ask for this does not mean it is not a valid head of compensation.
Since this is a test case, and JCU are bent on appeal, this added head of compensation should be researched, claimed and allowed for in any future determination.
His most productive life is now and the next ten years.
Which brings me back to my first point.
Dr Ridd is a generous person.
He would have contributed,so worked on beyond retirement age, were he given opportunity.
This cost must be reckoned.