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.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

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
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments