![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Duke v The University of Salford [2013] EWHC 196 (QB) (06 February 2013) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/196.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 196 (QB) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
DR GARY PAUL DUKE |
Appellant/ Defendant |
|
- and - |
||
THE UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD |
Respondent/ Claimant |
____________________
Justin Rushbrooke (instructed by Heatons) for the Respondent/Claimant
Hearing date: 28 January 2013
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Eady :
"In my judgment, the consultations which govern a body like a university are far removed from those in the Derbyshire County Council case. In no way does the university take part in the government of Hong Kong. It is not an organ of government, democratically elected or otherwise. If public interest be the test, I would hold that it strongly favours the protection of the reputation of institutions of learning like the university."
"This infelicitous posturing by the University big-wigs cuts against the grain of the University's own Information Governance … "
It is said that the natural and ordinary meaning is that the University (and its senior members of staff) have acted inappropriately and have failed to follow the University's rules of governance. This is contrived in the extreme. It makes no sense to say of the University that it has failed to follow its rules of governance. The criticism only makes sense in relation to human beings rather than a corporate entity. It is they who either do or do not follow its rules.
"With more than a hint of irony, this week, Vice Chancellor Hall has been appointed to the Knowledge Sharing Board … Can Hall successfully square his wish to be open about other peoples research when he is so secretive about information that he ultimately controls, and which should equally be open to those who request it?"
The words speak for themselves.