this is how theguardian.com in part reported on Wednesday afternoon the Federal Court's decision, with the help of AAP.
i like the report because it provides context and parts of the actual decision.
"Ridd, his supporters and rightwing media commentators have frequently framed the case as being about academic freedom, or about the validity of the minority and controversial views held by Ridd about climate change and the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
"However, the university has maintained it had never sought to silence Ridd, and that his sacking was due to “serious misconduct” and breaches of the university’s code.
Among the allegations cited when the university sacked Ridd were that he had denigrated a colleague, disclosed confidential information and “failed to take reasonable steps to avoid or manage a conflict of interest between your own interests and the interests of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the interests of the university”.
"In a judgment published on Wednesday, justices John Griffiths and Sarah Derrington found Ridd’s enterprise agreement did not give him an “untrammelled right” to express professional opinions beyond the standards imposed by the university’s code of conduct.
"They ruled his termination did not breach the Fair Work Act. "
