So much for 'Mediation'

One would think that, facing enormous funding cuts and an uncertain future, Universities such as that in Salford would wish to invest their moneys in activities likely to yield a decent rate of return (ideally by attracting students). You'd be wrong to think that, however, as Professor Martin Hall has decided it far more wise to throw money at lawyers and the High Court in order to bring a libel case against an unemployed former lecturer from whom the University stand absolutely no chance of securing costs or having any awarded damages paid.

Rather than (as stated to District Judge Smith) enter into mediation on the matter, Professor Hall and the University of Salford have gone straight for the jugular, having officially served notice on Dr Gary Duke for creation and authorship of the 'RatCatchersOfTheSewers' blog, whose contents Hall and Dr Adrian Graves (now the only two individuals listed in the 'latest' statement of truth) claim are defamatory.

It will come as no surprise to some that notice was served on the same day as Dr Duke's Employment Tribunal hearing began (now there's a coincidence for you!).

There have been some interesting revelations in said Employment Tribunal so far. For instance, in spite of Dr Duke supposedly being fired for bullying and harassment, it turns out that no complaint of bullying and harassment has ever been made against him and the University can produce no written record of one ever existing. This in spite of the fact that their own regulations for investigating allegations of bullying and harassment - and the ACAS published guidance - states that a written complaint must at some point be submitted and must be made available to the defendant to challenge.

So what is the purpose of instigating expensive libel proceedings against an individual with no means to pay your costs or submit to the damages awarded in the event of triumph? Well, in our humble opinion (and we must stress that this is purely our opinion) there are several possible motives for this:

1) You mean to both bankrupt and ruin the individual against whom you are bringing proceedings.

2) You have absolutely no intention of bringing proceedings and are simply trying to intimidate the individual into complicity with a course of action you deem desirable.

3) You, in the parlance of gentlemen of a pair of centuries ago, 'demand satisfaction' that can only be provided by the Court.

4) Alternatively, you sincerely believe that the criticisms of an unemployed former lecturer published on an internet blog and read by an absolutely minuscule number of people will seriously damage the reputations of your University and impede your capacity to recruit students (this is Professor Hall's contention).

In the event that this ever gets to trial (and we have serious reservations about whether or not it will), the University (if successful) would eventually have to draft an order for costs to be approved by the court. This would necessitate some transparency about the quantity of money spent on solicitor's and barrister's fees - for once, we might find out a little more about the University's expenses.

So, every cloud...