Tribal Libel

Another bizzare turn of events at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre today as the University of Salford continued to pursue their libel claim against the author(s) of the Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog.

As ever there was a strong public showing - including individuals who were either there to act as journalists or who simply had a personal preference for taking vast quantities of notes - and the "public gallery" (in reality, a few plastic seats at the back of a square room - the Civil Justice Centre is a little lacking in the 'majestical') was full to capacity.

Confusion reigned for some, as one of the more unusual members of the public turned up late and was evidently overwhelmed by the heirarchical seating arrangements of a court of law. He sought, rather than grabbing the nearest chair, to wander aimlessly until instructed (geddit?) by Ian 'Daffyd' Austin to take the seat closest to the door - probably the safest thing for all concerned.

Today's hearing was for District Judge Smith to determine whether or not to grant an order compelling Virgin Media Group to disclose the user account details associated with the IP addresses of the authors of the statements on the blog that the University claim are defamatory.

After the previous 'session', in which District Judge Smith instructed Counsel for the Claimant to supply a witness statement arguing as to the falsity of the statements under question (and there were we naively thinking falsity was presumed in English defamation proceedings?), our old friend Dr Adrian Graves duly complied with the request, supplying a virtually identical witness statement to that authored by 'Daffyd' Austin some weeks before - with the added caveat of alleging falsity.

Dr Graves is deserving of particular mention at this point, as he has achieved the almost impossible feat of amassing almost as many official roles as did Lord Mandleson in the previous Labour Government (Dr Graves is listed in University Council minutes - which he is responsible for - as 'Deputy Vice Chancellor and Registrar and Secretary', although this is not quite a match for 'Baron Mandleson of Hartlepool; First Secretary of State; Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; Lord President of the Council; and President of the Board of Trade). 

Today's hearing was kicked off by the University's barrister, who explained that the instructing solicitor (our old friend 'Daffyd' Austin) and Virgin Media had agreed a form for the Court Order which would go unopposed by Virgin. There was then a request to extend the time limit for serving notice on the defendant (since obviously the defendant(s) remain unknown at present).

This was countered by an unending and somewhat incomprehensible rebuttal from a Mr E Longley - acting as the MacKenzie friend for Dr Gary Duke (the presumed author). His arguments seemed to revolve around three points of "law":

1) The IP addresses were 'illegally obtained' and thus should not be rendered admissable.

2) The comments complained of were not arguably false/defamatory.

3) The application to extend the time limit should be declined owing to supposed dithering on the part of the Claimant's solicitor.

Needless to say the Judge was having none of this and ruled in favour of the Claimants on the day's substantive issues, including ruling that all of the statements complained of were indeed arguably defamatory and arguably false (although there appeared to be some hesitance regarding allegations made against one of the claimants).

There was some commotion about the wording of the court order which was to be submitted to Virgin Media, with the Judge asserting that he will only approve an order which requests disclosure of the statements complained of (i.e. not indiscriminate disclosure).

The problem here was that neither the University's Solicitor or Barrister were in a position to issue assurances that the data sought in the proposed order corresponded to the author(s) of the statements complained of. Our friend Ian Austin seemed confident that the order could be revised to achieve this aim in less than 24 hours, and both the Judge and the Barrister agreed that the order could be amended so that Virgin can identify which IP addresses were responsible for the statements complained of.

There was some doubt about the technical feasibility of this proposal, as it is not routine for Internet Service Providers to retain mirrors of uploaded data from their user connections. In the event Virgin are unable to comply with this particular element of the request, one can only presume that Salford will need to go back to Automatic Inc for further information.

Whether or not Automatic Inc comply on a voluntary basis again (as before), or actually wait for a disclosure order from the Californian courts, will be very interesting to see. One imagines that the negative publicity generated as a result of their previous voluntary disclosure might discourage them from making further such disclosures.

Either way, it now seems to be just a matter of time before the author(s) is/are identified. What will become of them? In court today the University's Barrister seemed to imply that mediation would be entered in to and apologies would be sought before any judicial remedy was pursued. Whether or not this will abait the desires of the claimants to 'have their day in court' is another issue.


More to follow.

Ticking away, the moments that make up a dull day

The latest Council Minutes are, as ever, illuminating.

First on the order list is confirmation of Councillor Derek Antrobus being appointed for a three year period of office. Cllr Antrobus is Lead Member for Planning on the Labour controlled Salford City Council, and is much loved throughout Salford for his propensity for saying one thing and doing something entirely different. Given this he should fit in perfectly with his new colleagues.

No time was wasted in getting straight to the point with Antrobus on board, for at that very meeting emphasis was drawn to discussions that "were ongoing with Salford City Council about the acquisition of properties that were integral to the delivery of the estates master plan."

More interesting is the use Salford might wish to make of Cllr Antrobus during his three year membership of Council - given that they're going to need planning permission for some of their rather ambitious 'Estates Master Plans' (a stupid name, we agree), it's going to be helpful to have the Lead Member for Planning from the City Council on your board of trustees!

Under the section about 'University League Tables' there is not a single word of discussion recorded about the University reaching an all time low in this year's tables - being ranked 100th in the Guardian's ranking system. Instead the minutes just record everybody patting each other on the back about how much better things are undoubtedly going to get.


The final point of concern was KPMG's assessment that the delivery of a European Regional Development Fund contract being deemed "unacceptable". This apparently was down to "the system of internal control, risk management and governance for the project being unacceptable".

No doubt we will never find out more details regarding this.

Rewriting History?

We are interested to see that Ian Austin's biography on Salford's 'Council Biographies' website has enjoyed an extensive re-write, in light of recent events. Just a few weeks ago, the website proclaimed, hubristically:

Independently ranked as one of the “most dynamic figures in the North West market,” Ian Austin is a prominent player in the region. He grew up in Cheshire and has remained firmly rooted in the North West throughout his career – from completing his law degree at Chester Law School to guiding Halliwells through a series of bold initiatives that saw it become Manchester’s largest law firm. In 2004, at 42, Ian was elected managing partner and he immediately began delivering his vision of the firm, completing a comprehensive rebrand of Halliwell Landau to Halliwells LLP that same year. He also established a foothold in Liverpool through the successful merger with Cuff Roberts, followed in 2006 by joining forces with James Chapman & Co which boosted Halliwells to becoming the region’s largest law firm. Ian’s achievements and efforts didn’t go unnoticed and perhaps one of his career highlights to date was being awarded Management Partner of the Year at the 2006 Legal Business Awards. The judges described him as having “an astute hiring and merger policy and an infectious enthusiasm”. In December 2007 he welcomed the entire Manchester workforce to the impressive new Spinningfields district when Halliwells relocated to 3 Hardman Square. With Ian’s guidance Halliwells has adopted a modern corporate structure and maps out innovative career paths for its staff. Strong leadership, business focus, open communications and sound financial management are his trademarks but his achievements go far beyond the realm of business. He sits on the development committee of The Prince’s Trust and has championed a number of fundraising campaigns – so far raising £450,000 for The Prince’s Trust, Claire House Children’s Hospice and the Cavendish Centre. He was also behind the decision to sponsor two of the most exciting young athletes in the UK; Francesca Halsall and Shelly Woods. This support enabled them fly the flag for Britain at the 2008 Beijing Olympics and both are currently busy preparing for London 2012. After recently taking up the position of Executive Chairman, Ian is responsible for running the main board and focuses his efforts on the firm’s commercial objectives and strategy. For more than five years he has guided Halliwells through a period of accelerated growth and remains committed to its success and long term future. Ian enjoys strong links with the Manchester business community and regularly speaks at conferences and events. He also comments regularly in the regional, national and trade media on business trends, leadership and the economy. Ian Austin lives with his wife and children in Ormskirk.

 

So it is interesting to see that a new, more toned-down version of Mr Austin's biography has since been posted to the website:

 

Ian Austin - partner, Heatons.   Ian Austin is one of the region's leading lawyers having practiced in Manchester for over 20 years. He has specialised in commercial litigation throughout this period and acts for a wide range of companies, institutions and individuals.  Ian has extensive experience in dealing with high value claims and, where appropriate, uses alternative forms of dispute resolution (including mediation) to resolve disputes.  He enjoys strong links with the Manchester business community and regularly speaks at conferences and events.   He is also a keen supporter of The Prince's Trust and has been closely involved in helping to support the trust and fundraising.   Ian lives with his wife and children in Mawdesley, Lancashire.

 

Eh? No mention of Halliwells? Awards? Leadership? Economics? What on earth could have changed between then and now that would prompt such a toned-down biography?

 

One can but wonder. 

The Man With A Plan

Everybody's favourite Property Litigator - Ian 'Daffyd' Austin - has been receiving warm messages of adulation in the press again. This week, the Manchester Evening News reported administrators BDO as stating that all the former FS and Equity Partners from Halliwells LLP will be interviewed in the New Year (we think possibly designed to co-incide with when the tax man seeks to collect his share). We are quite sure that both the former Fixed-Share and Equity members will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Austin and support him all the way.

The University of Salford - in a rare spectacle of actually complying with a Freedom of Information Request, even if it took them almost three months - have supplied expenses data about moneys paid to Halliwells LLP during the previous two financial years.

This comes to a total of circa. £20,000, with £17,000 of that being spent in the most recent financial year.

We anticipate that the majority of that £17,000 might have been spent upon pursuing the author(s) of the Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog.

Reading the Pre-Action correspondence sent to Dr Gary Duke (the presumed author), Ian Austin's initials are contained within the reference at the top of the page. This, naturally, raises several questions, such as:

1) How did Halliwells - and presumably Austin - come to be appointed to handle this case? Austin is said to be a specialist in Property Law (ironic!) and not defamation law. Surely there were more experienced candidates for the work?

2) Since during the previous financial year, University Council members were not legally permitted to receive any financial remuneration from the University - including for the procurement of services - who approved this expenditure?

3) Did Austin benefit from this expenditure? If so, there is a prima facie case for getting the pertinent Charity Regulators involved to assess the legality of this decision.

Of similar interest is the connection of the man who requested this information - Al Goodwin - to Halliwells LLP. Al Goodwin is a Senior Associate at Burges Salmon, a Bristol based firm of solicitors (and a very good one at that).

So what interest could they possibly have in this case? Well, reading a little further, it turns out that when Halliwells went belly up earlier this year, and a sizeable number of fresh Law graduates and recent recruits lost their Training Contracts/positions as a result, Burges Salmon took on a fair number of them to rescue them from destitution (quite generous!).

We anticipate that a fair number of 'state secrets' from Halliwells LLP might well have migrated with them. So do they know something we don't about Austin's relationship with Salford's procurement of legal services? Only time will tell.

UoS Annual Accounts 2010 - Full Analysis

Yes, it's that time of year again, where the general public get to pick through the details of the University of Salford's Annual Accounts. This year, there have been some important revisions to how the accounts are presented (undoubtedly as a result of the firestorm of negative publicity which followed some of the contents of last year's). We shall go through the highlights in order to avoid this analysis getting too convoluted:

1) There is no mention of Ian Austin's professional endeavours.

2) There is a brief mention of the decision for Mr John Corner to 'stand down' from his position on University Council as a result of his remunerated employment as the University's Director at MediaCityUK. There is, of course, no mention of the fact that his appointment (and possibly his remuneration) was announced before the University's newly amended Charter (permitting remuneration for members of Council) was approved by the Privy Council. There is also no mention that Mr Corner's name as a member of University Council was only removed from the list of members after a certain article appeared in Private Eye back in August.

3) In the Vice-Chancellor's statement, Professor Hall talks in riddles about the implications of the Browne Review, which we do not think he fully understands. We will summarise the implications for him, as he seems not to have managed to grasp them himself - there will be a 100% reduction of teaching grant in the Arts and Humanities. STEM subjects will retain subsidy but only those approved by the Department for BIS as being eligible. It is the intention for tuition fee income to replace HEFCE subsidy for the majority of undergraduate teaching.

4) The ambitious plan of yesteryear to increase student numbers by (at the time) 20% to a total of 24,000 students has been quietly dropped. Some of us, at the time, hinted that this was never going to happen.

5) Student numbers dipped slightly on last year.

6) A £20m loan was drawn in order to part-finance the MediaCityUK development.

7) Borrowing is set to increase by £30m over the next five years, principally to fund capital investments as part of the Estates Master Plan.

8) A profit of £250,000 was made on the sale of the former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Michael Harloe's, private cottage - called 'Holly Cottage'.

9) Pension liability fell by some £11m - this was largely explained by the decision in the Coalition Government's budget to restore the link between pensions and the Consumer Prices Index rather than the Retail Prices Index (this accounted for some £6.9m of reduction in liability). The remainder of the reduction is put down to the rallying of international stock markets (which, at the time of the last Annual Accounts, were in total disarray). [On a side note, we do not entirely agree with the £6.9m reduction in liability as a result of the government changing the inflationary index to which they will peg pension increases - VAT is due to increase to 20% from Jan 1 2010 and the BoE have not ruled out further quantitative easing. Whilst this reduction in liability was made on actuarial advice, we think the advice might be somewhat optimistic]

10) Whilst HEFCE grants grew by £4m, research grants fell by some £0.8m. Tuition fees from 'Home' students (i.e. those from within the EU studying for a first degree) rose by £6m, whereas tuition fees from students charged overseas rates (i.e. non-EU students and EU students studying for a second degree) fell by some £0.7m. Part time student income rose slightly.

11) Wages/salary costs dipped slightly, but the quantity of staff fell by ~150 and we presume the increased expenditure on Agency/Temp staff might offset the savings here.

12) The Early Retirement/Voluntary Severance scheme (which it was recently resolved to amend) has inflated from a mere £121k last year to a staggering £1.4m this year. With this in mind, it is not altogether surprising the University are seeking to make the schemes more affordable.

13) Professor Martin Hall is earning considerably less than his predecessor - a notional £83,000 less in salary than was Professor Michael Harloe at the point of his departure. However, he is accepting pension contributions, which totalled some £30k for the financial year. Throw in 'benefits in kind' and total emoluments to Professor Hall were some £223,000. This is still £84,000 less than total emoluments awarded to Professor Harloe in the previous year. However, if one reads the Annual Accounts of the University of Cape Town (which, naturally, we have), Professor Hall's acceptance of his position at Salford still resulted in a de facto near-tripling of the salary he was receiving whilst serving as Deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCT (based on current conversion rates), although it must be pointed out that he resigned the role of DVC at UCT many months before his tenure began at Salford.

14) The 14 highest paid members of staff at the University collectively received at least ~£1.7m in remuneration.

15) The accounts note than a senior member of staff left in 09/10 and received an ex-gratia payment of £30,000. We think this might have been Professor Gill Nicholls, but obviously cannot confirm. Note that £30,000 is the maximum ex-gratia payment that can be awarded for loss of office without incurring tax liability.

16) Remarkably, there is some transparency on the costs of Council Retreat - 11 members attended in the previous year, at a cost of some £3,162. It would be interesting to see what this money actually was spent on, but perhaps that his hoping for too much.

17) In a similar vein of transparency, we learn that £7,364 was paid in expenses to 7 Council members in respect of Travel, Hotel and Course Costs. Again we would like to see what this money actually went on.

Expenses

18) There has been substantial revision of the method of presenting the expenses contained under the sub-heading "Other Operating Expenses", which last year generated so much controversy (and continue to do so, for at the time of writing the University is yet publish the data on what the staggering sum of £30m+ was spent on).

19) For this reason, the accounts this year provide a more detailed (but ultimately still rather opaque) reflection of the purposes for which moneys were declared as expenses. This brings the University of Salford's accounts in to line with the majority of UK University Annual Accounts, which have for years been presenting their expenditure in a similar fashion.

20) The sheer quantity of expenses has in no way diminished - in fact it has risen by circa. £3m.

21) £1.2m was spent on catering; £3.6m was spent on Equipment & Furniture (including hire/maintenance); £750,000 was spent on financial charges; £633,000 was spent on consumables (this ordinarily includes chemicals, materials for scientific experiments etc); £543,000 was spent on vehicle and transport costs; £8.5m was spent on 'professional and other fees'; £4.5m was spent on agency staff; £3.698m was spent on 'staff travel and subsistence costs'; £7.7m was spent on 'premises, maintenance and repair'.

22) These are still substantial sums of money. Some items of expenditure also seem to have disappeared from the balance sheet - for instance, last year's accounts included a sub-heading "Household Expenditure" in excess of £200,000. Either this sort of expenditure has been terminated (unlikely) or it has simply been subsumed into other headings.

23) The internal-auditors (KPMG) are described as being remunerated for non-audit work.We assume this relates to their consultancy role at the inception of the current IT replacement project. If so, KPMG were rewarded with a rather handsome £192,000.

A brief ode to Simon Attwell

Simon Attwell has been the University of Salford's Finance Director for several years now. He has displayed immense patience in this role and in dealing with students and, having presented these Annual Accounts for the previous financial year, is due to retire at the end of this month. We wish him well in his retirement, which we are sure he will enjoy to the fullest.

Comment

Whatever way one looks at it, this year's Annual Accounts detail a truly enormous amount of reform and activity taking place at the University of Salford. This, no doubt, is a result of the fresh energies brought to bear on stale problems by Professor Martin Hall, who is an unquestionably talented academic leader. Simply reading through the quantity of changes being enacted is itself staggering.

Yet again, operational expenses have increased. It is difficult for us - and no doubt readers - to place much confidence in the veracity of this expenditure without seeing a detailed breakdown.

The highest paid 14 members of staff are taking home a disproportionately large salary - at least £1.7 million is being split between them. Professor Hall's considerably lesser salary than his predecessor, whilst commendable in some respects, is in others simply a reflection of this being his first year of tenure. The real test of the man will be in seeing whether or not the 14%+ pay rises of his predecessor continue as normal, or whether he is willing to exercise fiscal restraint in his own remuneration. As has been mentioned, his 'mere' £220,000 is still a de facto tripling of the remuneration he is reported as receiving in the UTC Annual Accounts for his post as Deputy Vice-Chancellor with lead responsibility for Transformation Policies (a South African constitutional requirement).

Once the outcome of the current round of FoI requests is dealt with, we will attempt to glean data on the expenses described in this year's annual accounts and assess the veracity of the expenditure for ourselves.

Salford at "Medium Risk"

A report published today by the University and Colleges Union suggests that Salford is at 'Medium Risk' after the implementation of funding changes instigated by the Browne review. 'Medium Risk' of what you might ask? Well, we're not entirely sure - risk of insecurity of income seems to be what the report implies.

And it is true to say that the government decision to withdraw all funding from the Arts and Humanities will hit Salford very hard indeed. Even those 'technical' degrees that Salford offer which might appear to qualify for HEFCE subsidy might not do so, as the government actually have a list of 'approved' degree courses that they are willing to subsidise (and umpteen different ways of teaching Media Studies & Video Technology are unlikely to meet the cut - no pun intended).

So is this medium risk assessment accurate? In our opinion, no. The UCU report only assesses four different criteria, all of which are concerned with income. Salford has an ambitious expenditure programme planned for the coming years, and expensive commitments at MediaCityUK (although they are still refusing, under the Freedom of Information Act, to release details about the cost of the lease they have signed with Peel Holdings).

So 'Medium Risk' might be oversimplifying things. The report also assesses proportion of income gleaned from non-EU domiciled students, and uses a higher percentage as minimising risk. But it fails to take account of government plans to cap and regulate the number of non-EU students that may undertake study here, and to introduce more stringent English Language requirements for those applying. This is likely to introduce fluctuations to an insitution's capacity to recruit non-EU domiciled students.

The Matrix is everywhere...

"What if there were two worlds?" laments Professor Hall, quoting the Economist with more zeal than a thespian at the RSC, "the real one and its digital reflection? If a door opens in the real world, so does its digital reflection."

Enthusiasts of the fantastical will be pleased to hear that such binary-inspired theoretical acrobatics have already been handled with aplomb:

See the future in a whole new light?

After much fighting talk, it turns out this solemn promise actually consisted of a stereoscopic projector and three minutes of psychadelic video footage which sort of resembles a bad experience with a Class A hallucinagenic drug:



It reminded us of a cross between that kaleidoscope sequence in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Oddyssey and an episode of Chris Morris's totally bizzare TV show, Jam.

So, did anybody see the future in a whole new light? For us, it was simply a reminder of the past - a questionable way of spending what we would guess was a considerable sum of money (stereoscopic projection does not come cheap). One student has already said they refused to attend because this is not how they wished to see their tuition fees being invested. The 'Prizes' given away are to include an iPad, a tour and a day at Sumners post-production facility - clearly not a sufficient attraction for most students.

Something's happening...

Indeed - something is happening. However, things that are not likely to happen on 29 November at 17:15 include:

1) Publication of expenses data: Salford is still yet to publish information requested in well over 100 Freedom of Information Requests about expenses and similar such data. We now know that Professor Martin Hall - the man who so heroically used the complexities of his professional craft (Archaeology) to dispell some of the nonsense espoused by South Africa's Apartheid government - is being asked to personally approve refusal notices for requests that appear to be us to be perfectly valid. This comes after him telling the Student Union's AGM last year that there was a "public interest" in publishing expenses data for the SLT on a quarterly basis, and he was simply waiting for the first quarter to elapse. Unsurprisingly, the data never surfaced. Worst still, Matthew Stephenson has claimed in a public response that this decision not to publish was taken by Salford's Audit Committee, of which our old friend Ian Austin is still listed as the Chair (more below).

2) Terminating expensive legal proceedings: after Salford's barrister made the revelation about the staggering expense of the current Libel proceedings being pursued, we pointed out in a previous post that if Salford have 'guessed' the correct culprit, they would appear unlikely to be able to recoup much of their considerable expenses as a result. On pure cost/benefit analysis, it would appear to be expedient for them to consider whether this is a worthwhile pursuit, especially if the case goes to trial.

3) Removing Ian Austin as Chair of Audit and as a Trustee: in spite of 'managing' his firm toward administration and having been slammed in the press for months on end now, Ian Austin is still listed as Salford's Chair of Audit. Why they are keeping him in his role totally confounds us.

4) Admitting that spending £20k on a Chandelier was a mistake: self explanatory, really.

Etc etc...

The Fletcher Memorial Home For Colonial Wasters

Monday provided a rare spectacle for the Place We All Know And Love, as the University of Salford continued to pursue their libel case against the author of blog 'The Rat Catchers Of The Sewers' (now closed down).

Things took a turn for the truly bizzare when one member of the public - there to support one of the presumed defendants, Dr Gary Duke - was found carrying a knife in his pocket after being searched at the Court entrance. He was quickly turned away by security and told to dispense with the weapon - which he possibly buried somewhere - before returning and being admitted to the building, there go about his normal business.

The hearing was supposed to decide whether or not to grant a Court Order and issue a Letter of Request to the Superior Court of California to try to compel the Californian hosts of the blog, Automatic Inc., to disclose the IP and user data for the Blog's creator and contributors.

This was rendered null and void when, literally minutes before the hearing was set to commence, Counsel for the Claimants produced a copy of an Affadavit from the Chief Executive Officer of Automatic. Inc supplying the requested IP data and user email account (the email account did not identify the author).

Yes, that's right, Automatic Inc., whose privacy policy states "your privacy is critically important to us" and "we don't share your personal information with anyone except to comply with the law", did not even bother to wait for a Court Order (the costs for which they are not liable) and simply handed out IP data voluntarily.

The hearing was then simply an opportunity for Counsel for the Claimant to update on progress and for the Defendant to clarify the procedure henceforth. The case was adjourned until 21st December, where the Judge will decide whether to grant a Court Order against Virgin Media requiring them to disclose the User Account associated with the IP address acquired.

Present was one Ian 'Daffyd' Austin who, inbetween taking what looked to us like life-or-death calls on his mobile, fought back indigestion and muffled his way through the hearing with the occasional instruction to his Barrister, intermittently removing his glasses and sinking his head into his hands for some forceful 'eye rubbing' maneuvres.

Austin could be forgiven were he not totally focused on the task at hand, as that same morning news emerged via The Lawyer that the creditors of Halliwells LLP have formed a committee to decide who deserves the legal and financial equivalent of a Glasgow Kiss. There is a very real possibility that the creditors may try and pursue the former Equity Partners (including Austin) for personal liability for the truly enormous quantities of debt amassed by the LLP before its demise.

Given that Austin was party to the decision to trouser the property windfall from the Spinningfields' Landlords, and the decision to secretly change the LLP deed, he would have good cause to be concerned.

The Claimant's Barrister - whose name escapes us - looked like a cross between Alan "Not-For-Profit" Rusbridger and Jeffrey Lebowski, and proved eminently deferential to District Judge Smith throughout the hearing. He made a particular point about the enormous costs run up by the University in pursuing this libel case, emphasising that the author of the blog in question will be charged with these costs (although how such a person would actually supply the quantity of money necessary he did not touch upon).

So it's good to see Salford pursuing a worthwhile cause. If it were to transpire that their target suspect - Dr Gary Duke - was indeed the author of the blog, how exactly they hope to win back both their court costs and whatever sum of damages might be awarded from an unemployed lecturer - who they themselves fired not too long back - is something of a mystery.

That said, there is still the possibility that this case may never reach trial. District Judge Smith instructed Ian Austin to supply witness statements either from the Claimants or from a Solicitor acting on express instruction that explains whether or not the statements complained of are "arguably false".

Given that evidence emerged as recently as last week that might vindicate some of the allegedly defamatory statements, do not be surprised if 21st December is the last heard of this case.

More interesting still is that Counsel for the Claimant seemed to imply in a written submission to District Judge Smith that - once the user data has been acquired - they might want to enter into mediation rather than go straight to trial.

Watch this space.

Freedom of Information?

On Friday 5th February 2010, an email was sent by Professor Martin Hall to a student - in response to an allegation that Professor Hall had sanctioned the rejection of Freedom of Information Requests - in which Professor Hall stated the following:

"I do not play any direct role in FoI requests, and we respond to FoI requests in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, which protect institutions from the abuse of the system. To hold me responsible for initiatives that were taken before I even knew where Salford is, is silly"

He went on to state:

"It is both ironic and absurd for you to lecture me on leadership. Your style of writing, combined with innuendo and unfounded allegations, is an excellent example of the sort of bullying we need to work against."

Unfounded allegations, ey? Well, repeat blunderer Matthew Stephenson - the University of Salford's Head of Information Governance - today issued a response to a Freedom of Information Request submitted to the University of Salford by eminent lawyer, Al Goodwin. Naturally, it was a refusal notice - but unfortunately for "Matt", he accidentally included within his response his email to 'Alison' (presumably the Vice-Chancellor's Chief-Of-Staff) asking her to get the Vice-Chancellor to personally approve the refusal notice:

"Alison,

This is the proposed refusal notice and internal review outcome for the request about the costs of our work with Halliwells.

As per the complaints procedure, the VC will have to agree to this response as the DVC was involved in the first request.

Cheers
Matt"

Well well well! Not only is Professor Martin Hall seemingly PERSONALLY approving refusal notices, but his appointed and much-loved Deputy is personally approving invalid ones according to Mr Stephenson!

Quite a pickle, wouldn't you agree?

Sad Day

A terrible day for the University of Salford, who have now officially announced the resignation of the Head of the Law School, Professor Alistair Alcock.

Rumour has it he resigned on Monday, and whilst we have been made privy to one possible explanation for his departure, at the moment we can only speculate as to the cause.

Professor Alcock is a thoroughly decent man and, during his five year tenure, has succeeded admirably in leading his school in the face of difficult circumstances. The Law School under his leadership has performed exceptionally well and for this he ought be commended.

More to follow.

Spiralling Costs

The most recent minutes of University Council reveal that the on-going "IT Transformation Programme" is running at a staggering £2.7m over the budget originally forecast by beancounters KPMG (who were hired as external consultants).

This was a point of considerable discussion at the meeting, but nevertheless Council gave the nod for the extra capital required to see the project through.

The blame has been primarily laid at KPMG's door, since apparently "£2 million of this sum was a result of items not originally specified by KPMG in their cost calculations."

The explanation continues: "it would have been difficult for KPMG to factor in the required additional expenditure into the original estimate; this was largely a result of an underestimate of the extent of institutional maturity and capability (both in terms of human and physical resources)."

If anybody can figure out what on earth this means - aside from sounding like yet another fantastic game of Bullshit Bingo - then please submit answers on a postcard.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though, for the minutes go on to explain:

"The Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Registrar and Secretary advised that, as Chair of the Project Board, he would be commissioning a post project review and this would include a review of the use of consultants."

Praise the Lord!

Oh Dear

Keeps getting worse for Salford's Chair of Audit.

The administrators have said it is likely that claims will be brought in respect of "claims for repayment of overdrawn drawings, claims for unpaid capital contributions [and] claims for breach of duty and breaches of the Limited Liability Partnership Agreement."

How will they determine who to bring claims against? Well, this will depend upon "the position of the individual member, whether they remained a member at the date of the administration, their involvement in the running of the business and their knowledge of the financial position”.

For the former Managing Partner, there when the iceberg hit and who was primarily responsible for managing the business during its "troubles", this might appear not to bode well.

It has also been alleged that Mr Austin may have been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

More to follow.

The Guardian takes notice

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/22/corporate-law-firms-boom-era-excess

WTF?

Undeterred by the fact that seemingly, nobody cares enough about the content of his blog to actually issue commentary upon it, Professor Martin Hall has nevertheless given us an interesting puff piece about Tuition Fees this week.

He draws emphasis upon some curious ideas, but most curious among them is why he has supplemented his diatribe with a photograph not illustrating the dilemma facing the Coalition Government, nor even the awful indebtedness for future generations of students, but - for reasons we simply cannot fathom - has utilised a picture of an advertisement for Waitrose at a generic bus stop(!).

Austin's Powers - Dwindling?

Far be it from us to intrude upon private grief, but we couldn't help but notice that former Managing Partner of Halliwells LLP (now collapsed - we are reliably informed this is the single largest LLP failure in British history) Ian Austin is currently under threat of litigation from the former Fixed Share Members of the LLP.

What has been alleged is that Mr Austin and the other Equity Partners were emailing the Fixed Share Members with, shall we say, imaginative interpretations of the state of the LLP's finances in order to persuade them to invest their own money (!!) into the LLP to keep it afloat. One (undisclosed) former partner has claimed that there is documentary evidence to substantiate this claim, which could be acquired via a court order in the event they decide to press ahead with litigation.

So lets get this straight - a man who (allegedly) 'shapes' impressions of the state of the finances in the LLP he is responsible for managing in order to extract investment by his juniors and keep a failing partnership afloat?

At the time of writing, Ian Austin is still listed as the Chair of Audit at the University of Salford and is (by proxy) still a member of University Council (i.e. the Board of Trustees).

Is this really the sort of person Professor Martin Hall wants as being primarily responsible for assessing "risk management" and "financial health" within a public charity?

Actually, perhaps we'd better not try and answer that...

Conflict of Interest

After his earlier reassurances that the TCM Report exonerated staff appointments within Salford Business School, we are getting unconfirmed reports that Professor Hall's claims to staff in his letter of 6th July are, to coin a much used phrase, questionable.

The report apparently contains no less than 13 irregularities in the appointments process, some of which directly relate to the supposedly 'suspicious' appointments.

One of the alleged findings of the report is that 'Project Headroom' (remember that?) made two Accountants redundant, following which two accountancy jobs were advertised (!!).

The report is bound to leak eventually, and if it doesn't, it will certainly be disclosed under FoI before too long.

As soon as it becomes available, expect a full analysis on here.

But the bigger question has to be - why commission an independent report only to prevent wider analysis of its findings? This speaks to Professor Hall's character almost as much does threatening to sue his own students.

[edit]

Justification has since been offered by the University that the composition of this report is predicated upon the notion of confidentiality - i.e. that those whose testimony informed it have a right to retain their anonymity.

The Information Commissioner will have to judge the veracity of that defence. Rest assured, we are not accepting it at face value.

"Independent Review"

Readers will be familiar with the propensity for appointing staff to the University of Salford's Business School who, shall we say, have some connection to the existing hierarchy of management.

So Professor Martin Hall's decision to appoint independent consultants TCM Group to conduct an investigation into these appointments might have initially seen by some as a step in the right direction.

But what, pray-tell, is the purpose of conducting an 'independent' review, and then not allowing staff to read the detailed results? It is all well and good for Professor Hall to write to staff asserting that:

"The TCM Group’s report concludes that all appointments within the scope of the review were appropriate. The report has, however, made a number of recommendations for improvement of some aspects of our procedures and administration of staff recruitment.

Specific recommendations include processes for shortlisting candidates, the selection and training of interview panels, resolving potential conflicts of interest, and the internal communication of staff recruitment and selection."

But why not allow staff to read the report for themselves to assess the veracity of these conclusions?

We cannot help but think that the reason might be that the report may not support Professor Hall's assertions. As ever, both of the Freedom of Information Requests asking for copies of the report have thus far been ignored.

Concerns about impartiality put to rest

No more will anybody have to worry about the possibility that members of University Council - the 'independent' body that scrutinises the activities of senior management and is responsible for, among other things, appointing a Vice Chancellor - are accepting hospitality from the University or having cash and contracts supplied to them.

Because now, the University of Salford's charter has been amended to make such activities a permitted matter of policy!

"The University may, and may only, confer benefits on members of the Council if the benefit has been authorised by the Council in accordance with the Ordinances. In this clause "benefit" includes:

a) Buying any goods or services from the University;
b) Selling goods, services or any interest in land to the University;
c) Being employed by, or receiving any remuneration from the University;
d) Receiving any other financial benefit from the University"

The University of Salford now has an "independent" governing body which has granted itself the right to vote to bestow itself with financial benefits from the University's charitable accounts.

Even our Members of Parliament have recognised the lunacy of the sovereign chamber deciding its own pay and remuneration policies.

Perhaps the University of Salford will set a more positive example than Parliament managed to? That said, we may never find out, as the University is proving even more robust in preventing public scrutiny of its accounts than Parliament has, having refused well over 100 Freedom of Information Requests about them.

The Curious Case of Ian Austin

Spare a thought for poor Ian Austin who, as former Managing Partner at Halliwells LLP, had to endure burdens that we mortals could not even imagine.

This included the horrors of having to slice up a £15m cash windfall as profit, to be trousered by him and his co-Equity Partners, before the humiliating experience of having to watch as Halliwells LLP went into Administration.

As if that weren't enough, his colleagues are not even supplying him with a sympathetic showing for his plight.

We trust, in the spirit of academia which so often flourishes in Britain, that he will be given a much fairer deal in his other official role, as Chair of the Audit Committee at the University of Salford!