Poor defence, after the fact

March 18, 2010

Nick Petford's apologia for the misdeeds of Bournemouth University in the Buckland case cannot go unchallenged (Letters, 11 March).

It was the view of the Southampton Employment Tribunal that originally heard this case that the university had permitted and had indeed aided and abetted the unauthorised re-marking of scripts. In upholding Paul Buckland's claim for constructive dismissal, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to praise the manner in which the Southampton tribunal had established this fact.

Geoffrey Alderman, University of Buckingham.

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments