In a Court of Appeal ruling on the case of an academic constructively dismissed after his marking was called into question, Lord Justice Jacob criticised the habit of “Ping pong”: the practice of sending cases back to the tribunal or court. He noted that it generally serves litigants badly, prolongs things and increases costs.
Certainly a case like archeology professor Paul Buckland’s, which was heard at tribunal, appeal tribunal and court of appeal must have racked up hundreds of thousands pounds in costs but it’s rare that full figures emerge. We should, therefore, be thankful for the recent and rather ridiculous story of lance sergeant Donna Rayment who took a case for sexual harassment to the High Court.
She said that having to work occasionally in a room at the Honourable Artillery Company – preferred TA unit of City boys looking for some soldiering – which featured pin ups amounted to sexual harassment. Although the MoD offered her a settlement of £60,000 and £125,000 towards legal costs she turned it down.
The High Court recently ruled in her favour but awarded damages of just £7,000 for harassment. The costs came to about £500,000, of which £400,000 fell to Rayment’s lawyers.
She seems happy enough and will give her damages to a soldiers’ charity. Just think how much more she could have given had she settled earlier?
Much of these costs will be borne by the public. Thanks partly to the endless stream of employment law over the past three decades, the tribunal system has become a money eating machine that would have left even King Croesus breathless.
There should be a moratorium on new employment law – we’ve got far too much as it is. I think Hattie Harman’s Equalities Bill should suffice for now, or for the next 100 years.
The professor Buckland case also raises the issue of standards – one taken up by respondents to the Times Higher Education Supplement: “Let’s hope that this is a lesson to all of those universities (mainly post-92, but not all) which have got into the habit of scooping up low grade students in clearing and then manipulating academic standards to ensure that students who couldn’t demonstrate strong ability at A level come out with high grade degrees.”
Now, now, steady on – we all know students are brighter than ever and standards have never been higher. The Government has told us so.
Ralph Savage
Tim Evershed
