Claim No: TLQ/2009/0598
[HQ06X02398]
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 2315 (QB) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Thursday 28th January and Friday 29th January, 2010

BEFORE:

HIS HON. JUDGE CURRAN QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BETWEEN:
Thomas Bangert
Claimant 
-And- 
London South Bank University
Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Digital Transcript of Wordwave International, a Merrill Communications Company
101 Finsbury Pavement London EC2A 1ER
Tel No: 020 7422 6131  Fax No: 020 7422 6134
Web: www.merrillcorp.com/mls       Email: mlstape@merrillcorp.com
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Claimant appeared in person.
John Hamilton  (instructed by Walkers Morris) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
His Hon. Judge Curran QC
Introduction
1.	This is an action for damages for breach of contract brought by the Claimant, Mr Thomas Bangert against the Defendant, the London South Bank University, in respect of the termination, in late 2001, of his studies at the University for a doctorate in philosophy. 
2.	The Claimant graduated in 1988 from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Science degree, having studied computing sciences, with a specialization in artificial intelligence and ‘a minor’ in philosophy. After extensive world-wide travel, he decided in 1997 to settle in Great Britain.
3.	He came to live in London, and found that the South Bank University (as it was then known) was close to his home.  It advertised postgraduate studies specifically related to the Internet and the related technologies. These attracted his attention. The Claimant applied to enter the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (“EEIE”) and was accepted for admission in September 1998 to study for a Master of Science degree (which is a ‘taught’ post-graduate degree, as distinct from a research degree.)   
4.	It is the Claimant’s case (and there is no evidence to contradict this) that in the summer of 1999 one of his lecturers at SBU, a Dr. Peng, (with whom he had had no previous personal contact outside the lecture theatre) told him that he had been looking for Ph. D. students to recruit, and to that end he had been reviewing student rankings. Dr Peng, according to the Claimant, said the Claimant  was the highest-ranked student of the year within EEIE, and that despite his only having completed half of the M. Sc. degree course, he was prepared to offer him one of the Ph.D.  places that were available.
5.	Following formal confirmation of the place in September 1999 the Claimant registered as a postgraduate student (M. Phil. progressing to a Ph.D.) at what had now become the London South Bank University (“SBU”). He was in receipt of an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (“EPSRC”) studentship award. 
6.	The Claimant was a Ph.D.  Student at the Defendant University between September 1999 and November 2001. While undertaking his Ph.D.  research, the Claimant continued to be based at the EEIE (sometimes called in the evidence “the School.”) After an early change in focus, his Ph.D.  research settled on work relating to the design and testing of new internet protocols (‘protocols’ in this context means a set of rules which underlie the operation of the Internet). 
7.	Initially the Claimant had a three-member supervisory team consisting of a primary supervisor (Dr. Peng) and a second and third supervisor (Dr. Amjum Pervez, the Head of the Telecommunications Division, and Professor Alford, Professor of Physical Electronics and Materials, respectively.) It was also intended that the Claimant would be able to collaborate with British Telecommunications plc (“BT”) at their research facility near Ipswich (“BT Labs”), where Mr (later Prof) Ian Marshall was his personal contact. Mr Marshall was then a research manager at BT Labs.
8.	Like many graduate students, the Claimant was also employed as a part time lecturer by the Defendant. His employment ended (it seems clear) when it was not renewed for the 2001-2002 academic year in Autumn 2001.  
9.	In November 2001 the Claimant was formally excluded from the University. The reasons for his expulsion (or “exclusion”) are essentially the subject-matter of this litigation.  Those reasons, and the decision-making process which led to the expulsion, have already been the subject of earlier unsuccessful challenges by the Claimant in the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal.  The previous litigation did not, however, involve the hearing of oral evidence, as this case has. Accordingly, this case falls to be decided not upon the basis of any findings in the previous litigation, but upon the evidence which was given, orally and in writing, during this hearing, and upon the basis that the burden of proof lies upon the Claimant to establish his case upon the balance of probabilities.  
10.	Further, an important distinction from previous litigation is that the Claimant’s case is based upon certain items of contemporaneous documentary evidence which he says now demonstrates malice or bad faith on the part of members of staff towards the Claimant.  This evidence was not previously available to the Claimant.  It casts, he contends, quite a different light upon the rest of the evidence upon which the decision to expel him was based. 

Regulations applicable to research degrees
11.	It is common ground that the SBU’s  “Regulations for the award of the University's degrees of  Master of Philosophy, Doctor  of Philosophy and Higher Doctorates” applied to both the Claimant and the Defendant.  The most clearly relevant regulations are as follows:

                   “4 The registration period
.…
4.2 A full‑time candidate shall normally reach the standard for M. Phil.  within two years of registration and for Ph.D.  within three years.
……
4.11 All students are required to submit ten month progress reports in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Faculty in which the student is enrolled.
4.12 A failure to submit a ten month report, or the submission of a report deemed inadequate by the Faculty, will normally lead to the cancellation of the student's registration.
5 Supervision
5.1 A research degree candidate shall have at least two and normally not more than three supervisors.
5.2 At least one supervisor shall have had experience of supervising candidates to the successful completion of a research degree, normally in the UK. A supervision team shall normally have had a combined experience of supervising not fewer than two candidates to successful completion. In the case of a Ph.D.  one of the supervisors shall have successfully supervised at Ph.D.  level.
5.3 One supervisor shall be the Director of Studies (first supervisor) with responsibility to supervise the candidate on a regular and frequent basis.
5.4 In addition to the supervisors, an adviser or advisers may be proposed to contribute some specialised knowledge or a link with an external organisation.
…
5.6 A proposal for a change in supervision arrangements shall be made to the Research Degrees Committee on the appropriate form.
6 Transfer of registration from Master to Dr  of Philosophy
6.1 A candidate registered initially for M. Phil.  with possibility of transfer to Ph.D.  who wishes to transfer to Ph.D.  shall apply on the appropriate form to the Research Degrees Committee when he/she has made sufficient progress on the work to provide evidence of the development to Ph.D.  (normally after about 9‑15 months of full‑time study or the part‑time equivalent).
6.2 In support of the application, the candidate shall prepare for the Research Degrees Committee, and submit to the Registry, a full progress report on the work undertaken.
The progress report should normally be 3,000 to 6,000 words in length and include:
a) a summary
b) a brief review and discussion of the work already undertaken; and
c) a statement of the intended further work, including details of the original contribution to knowledge which is likely to emerge.
d) draft thesis chapter headings and a timetable for completion of the thesis.
6.3 Before approving transfer from M. Phil.  to Ph.D.  the Research Degrees Committee shall be satisfied that the candidate has made sufficient progress and that the proposed programme provides a suitable basis for work at Ph.D.  standard which the candidate is capable of pursuing to completion. An oral assessment may be used by the Research Degrees Committee in appropriate circumstances as part of its assessment of the case for transfer.”
[It is to be noted that the report contemplated under regulation 4.11 is known colloquially as the “ten-month report” and that contemplated under regulation 6.2 is known as the “transfer report.” Both terms are used throughout the evidence, and in this judgment, in these senses.]

The principal parties
12.	Many different members, past and present, of the staff of the university are referred to in the evidence.  A list therefore follows for ease of reference, giving the name and roles of those principally involved as dramatis personae.   

Professor Neil Alford, Professor of Physical Electronics and Materials
Prof. Bryan Bridge, Head of the School of Electronic and Information Engineering
Prof. Chris Clare, Dean of Faculty of Engineering, Science & Technology
Dr Ruth Farwell,  Dean of Academic Affairs
Mr Alan Howson, Unit Co‑ordinator
Professor Imhof, Research Degrees Co‑ordinator (and Senior Personal Tutor to Research Students).
Professor Ian Marshall, formerly Head of Internet Engineering at British Telecom, now Professor of  Distributed Systems at the University of Kent
Joanne Monk, Deputy Head of Human Resources
Alan Nigrin, laboratory technician
Dr. Xaiohong Peng original Director of Studies for the Claimant’s research programme
Dr. Amjum Pervez, the Head of the Telecommunications Division
Rhodri Phillips, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Registrar,
Dr David Protheroe, Course Director, M. Sc.  preparatory course for Information Systems Engineering.
Karen Stephenson, Secretary to the Board of Governors,
Dr Perry Xiao, lecturer, of the Telecommunications Division

A short history of undisputed events during the Claimant’s time at the SBU
13.	In September 1999 the Claimant registered as a postgraduate student (M. Phil.  progressing to a Ph.D. ) at the SBU in receipt of an EPSRC studentship award. In January 2000 the Claimant was also given some teaching work by SBU as a part-time Hourly Paid Lecturer (“HPL”) to assist Dr. Peng to teach the laboratory sessions of the Introduction to Software Course.

14.	In January 2000 Dr. Pervez agreed that the Claimant could build a small mini-internet network for teaching purposes (“the Network”). It was agreed the Claimant be allowed to use the Network for his own research purposes, when it was not being used for teaching. 

15.	In February 2000 the Claimant submitted his application to register for a research degree: trial bundle Vol. C 1-6. The registered title of the Claimant’s programme of research was “A virtual port switching protocol to extend IP for real time data”. The Claimant listed as his supervisors Dr. Peng, Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford. British Telecom (BT) was named as a collaborating partner, with Ian Marshall named as the ‘contact person.’ The Application was signed by the Claimant, Dr. Peng, Dr. Pervez, Prof. Alford and Prof. Bridge. The Application was formally approved by the Research Degrees Committee (“RDC”). 

16.	In August 2000 the Claimant submitted his “10 Month Report.” This was approved. On 29 November 2000 the Claimant made a complaint that Dr Protheroe, who was in overall charge of courses which included the Introduction to Software Course, was subjecting him to ‘workplace harassment.’ The Claimant listed a number of grievances, which in summary were that Dr Protheroe was seeking to foist his teaching material upon him, that he was actively soliciting complaints from students and that he had deleted the teaching software. On 5 December 2000 the Claimant sent an email to Dr Protheroe complaining that he, Dr. Protheroe, had been ‘spreading rumours’ about him and undermining him.  Later, the Claimant alleged that Dr. Protheroe had ‘failed in his role’ as the Claimant’s ‘assistant’ [sic.] 

17.	In Autumn or late 2000 Prof. Marshall last had personal contact with the Claimant: see paragraph 12 and paragraph 17 of Prof. Marshall’s witness statement, (dealt with as agreed evidence at the hearing.)  

18.	In January 2001 the Claimant’s Director of Studies, Dr. Peng, left the SBU at short notice. The Claimant was then further employed to cover some of Dr. Peng’s teaching. On 26th January 2001 the Claimant emailed Prof. Bridge in respect of his claim that he had suffered workplace harassment from Dr. Protheroe.  On 11th February2001 Dr. Pervez received a report from Dr. Peng in respect of the Claimant and his other students stating that the Claimant had passed his 10 month report and was doing well.  

19.	During the period February to May 2001 no up-dates in respect of the progress of his research work were submitted by the Claimant to his supervisory team. (There are different versions of the reasons for this: on the one hand, Dr. Pervez claimed that throughout this period the Claimant repeatedly failed to respond to requests to provide him with an update on his research; on the other, the Claimant denied any requests were made and claimed that he had no Primary Supervisor during this period.) 

20.	On the 21st May 2001 Prof. Alford became actively involved in the Claimant’s supervision. On 22nd May 2001 the Claimant emailed Prof. Alford a “brief outline” of his research. On 6th June 2001 the Claimant emailed Prof. Alford complaining about the conduct of the laboratory technicians. He alleged that his research equipment, which had been borrowed earlier for academic use had not been returned, and alleged that there had been deliberate tampering with it. 

21.	On 19th June 2001 there was a meeting between the Claimant, Prof. Alford and Dr. Pervez, which included discussions regarding the Claimant’s problems with equipment, technical support, and his interaction with technical staff.  At this meeting the Claimant complained of difficulties with the laboratory technicians and suggested that he be appointed “(formally or informally) temporarily … as academic in charge of the laboratory network”. On the 20th June 2001 a memorandum from Dr. Pervez recorded the decisions taken, which included, an agreement that:

“all the computers acquired by Mr Bangert from LRC should be housed in Mr Bangert's research area for his exclusive use, enabling him to pursue his research without any hindrance; any piece of equipment which was the personal property of Mr Bangert must be removed from the teaching laboratory equipment and be returned to Mr Bangert immediately; All network cards and hard disks acquired by Mr Bangert from the LRC should be returned to him as soon as practically possible. However, if Mr Bangert needs any of this equipment urgently then this action should be taken immediately.”  

22.	On 22nd June 2001 the Claimant emailed Prof. Alford that there were irreconcilable differences between himself, his supervisor and the director of his group and that a grievance exists “or was likely to exist in the near future.” 

23.	On 27th June 2001 there was a further meeting between the Claimant, Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford. Prof. Alford says at this meeting that he understood from the Claimant that he had completed most of the requirements towards his Ph.D. , but that he needed to complete the experimental work: i.e. to test the validity of his theoretical work. Later an email was sent from the Claimant to Prof. Alford claiming technicians were deliberately failing to return various items of equipment. 

24.	In late June  2001 an “End of Unit” report on the Claimant’s teaching course by Alan Howson (Unit Co-ordinator) concluded that the Claimant decided to follow his own assessment profile and this put a considerable strain on the students, “who were far from happy making their feelings felt to me as unit co-ordinator, the course director and ultimately the Head of Department.” He referred to the Claimant’s “horrendous over assessment” of students and said it was decided to mark the students on the basis of their best marks in “mini-tests” and assignments. (It was disputed by the Claimant that grades were not provided to Howson or Protheroe.) The Claimant subsequently accused Mr. Howson of gross misconduct in respect of this re-grading. 

25.	On the 2nd July 2001 an email was sent from the Claimant to Prof. Alford, claiming the Network firewall had been tampered with and that this had a “direct result on my being able to complete my Ph.D. work”. On the 3rd July 2001 there was a further email from the Claimant to Prof. Alford complaining that his use of laboratory equipment was being restricted, and an email to Dr. Pervez claiming his equipment had been sabotaged. 

26.	On 4th July 2001 the laboratory technician, Alan Nigrin, emailed Prof. Alford complaining about the Claimant, and the Claimant emailed Prof. Bridge complaining that too much notice was being taken of unjustified student complaints against him. The Claimant also stated that criticisms of his assessments were unjustified because students needed feedback. The Claimant said that a former student of his had complained that now that the Claimant was no longer teaching them neither he nor anyone else on the course was receiving feedback in respect of their work.  On the 7th July 2001 three emails were sent by the Claimant to Prof. Alford complaining about the laboratory technicians. The Claimant claimed, inter alia that his research had   been delayed by 2 months by Mr. Nigrin.  

27.	On 9 July 2001 the Claimant enquired about the status of his complaint against David Protheroe and emailed Prof. Bridge stating that in his view stages 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure had been exhausted and asked to invoke the more formal stage 3. (D166 i.e. trial bundle Volume D, p.166).

28.	On 13th July 2001 there was a further meeting between Prof. Alford and the Claimant.  As a result, in an attempt to resolve any issues between the Claimant and Alan Nigrin, Prof. Alford and the Claimant then met Alan Nigrin. On 17th July 2001 the Claimant emailed Prof. Alford a list of three ‘academics’ who could act as external supervisors.  

29.	On 18th July 2001 Dr. Pervez emailed Ian Marshall of British Telecom saying Prof. Bridge had requested a statement setting out his views about the Claimant. The full text of this email reads as follows:

“I am sure you remember Thomas. How can you forget!! As you very well know that we have been having a great deal of difficulties with Thomas. I remember your recommendation of getting rid of him a year or so ago. However, for some reason Dr Peng (his supervisor) did not take any action what so ever to straighten things out with him. I did not interfere with Dr Peng's affairs to keep the peace within the group. Now that Dr Peng has gone and we are left with Thomas we want to take some firm actions to limit his unacceptable behaviour. On the other hand I don't think, as you predicted quite some time ago, that his Ph.D.  is progressing in the right direction. It is impossible to have any meaningful discussion with him as you have experienced in the past. In semester 1, Thomas was given the opportunity by Dave Protheroe to teach one of his units in software. During the course of that semester things went pretty bad between Dave and Thomas and now Thomas has started a grievances action against Dave. Prof. Bridge has been dragged in to the dispute. Prof. Bridge asked me about Thomas's Ph.D.  progress. I told him that Dr Peng did not leave any progress report on Thomas despite the fact that I specifically asked for it. Since Dr Peng left I tried saveral [sic] times to hold a meaningful discussion with Thomas but in vain. It has been impossible for me to get any sense out of him. I also mentioned to Bryan that you tried your best in the beginning to communicate with him and to advise him on his Ph.D.  work but Thomas never listened to your advice and eventually you had to give up. Bryan suggested that it would be very useful to have a statement from you expressing your views of his behaviour and your work experiences with Thomas. This will confirm his unreasonable bahaviour [sic] towards all of us. Bryan also asked me to make a statement expressing my views of him. Neil Alford has also been involved and reached situration [sic] point with Thomas. I would appreciate it if you could drop a few lines expressing your views on this matter. Thanks.”

30.	   Ian Marshall responded the following day. The full text of his response is as follows: 

“After first meeting Thomas we had a protracted exchange of e-mail, during which I was attempting to get him to explain and focus his ideas. His proposal at the time was to demonstrate some form of learning algorithm he claimed to have invented. His discourse was confused, rambling, contradictory, aggressive and at times very insulting. I tolerated this in order to get to the bottom of his claims.
Eventually I concluded that there were no new practical ideas - the ideas had either been implemented before (e.g. by Steve Grossberg), or involved attempting to do non-Turing computation on a von-Neumann machine (an obvious impossibility once the work was phrased in these terms). Thomas must have realised this too as shortly afterwards he radically revised the topic of his Ph.D. .
At this stage it was clear that Thomas' grasp of scientific method and mores was very weak. In addition training him to do anything that would be respected by other academic scientists would be extremely hard. In particular Thomas displayed an inability to accurately interpret written material or dialogue, and an overwhelming urge to make 2+2=5. I have never met anyone who can so reliably get hold of the wrong end of the stick. I have to say the intellectual structures he builds on his misconceptions are often very creative, but having built them he does not want to be told his assumptions are erroneous, and he will consistently ignore contrary data in order to defend them. As a result one has to tell him things somewhat obliquely and hope for the best. His unique approach is likely a result of his unusual background and could potentially be turned to advantage, but unfortunately this is likely to be a very time consuming and disruptive process. His inability to listen is clearly a major barrier. Thomas wrote a paper for the PGnet conference describing his new approach -experts in the audience told him that his work was built on wrong thinking, he claimed he knew better, and the audience (included some top UK experts) formed unfavourable opinions of both Thomas and his supervision. (they are unlikely to accept further work by Thomas, or even read it). At my next (and thus far, final) meeting with Thomas we discussed this work. I attempted to point out the points where his argument was flawed in some detail (more than could be achieved at me conference by my colleagues). The meeting however did not help - Thomas had one (unreviewed) article written by sales staff for an equipment vendor that apparently supported his view, and justified in his mind the rejection of advice from any other source. Quoting reviewed papers, standards and expert consensus apparently counted for nothing other than proving you knew less than Thomas, who had found the one true source.
My conclusion is that Thomas is a highly creative (but poorly socialised) individual, who has no chance whatsoever of learning and and adhering to the objective standards expected of a scientist He would be best advised to follow an alternative career path - perhaps creative arts would suit him well.”
31.	The Defendant accepts that at this time Prof. Bridge had asked that members of staff provide their views about the Claimant in writing. The Claimant claims that this was improper retaliatory “digging for dirt” as the result of his complaints – especially those against Dr Protheroe. This is not accepted by the Defendant University. 

32.	On 23rd July 2001, Dr. Perez replied, thanking Prof. Marshall and stating,

“The text on the Claimant was dynamite!! I hope we could [sic] get rid of him somehow.” 

33.	Also on 23rd July 2001 Prof. Bridge asked the Claimant to meet him to discuss the Protheroe complaint. After an initial discussion between the Claimant and Prof. Bridge, Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford were asked to join the meeting by Prof. Bridge. (They say that the Claimant then agreed that Dr. Xiao should take over as the Claimant’s supervisor and he would attend monthly progress meetings in order to assist him keep his research on track and deal with any problems. This is not agreed by the Claimant.) The Claimant subsequently emailed Prof. Bridge complaining that he (Prof. Bridge) had tried to coerce him into dropping the Protheroe complaint. There is no transcript of this meeting.

34.	24th July a further short meeting took place, which was recorded covertly by the Claimant.  The recording has been transcribed. The transcript shows that (after a short dispute over procedure) it ended as  follows: 

BB [Prof Bridge]: Thomas, this meeting is over with! I'm going to … write to you formally on our meetings so far. I'm sorry Thomas, the meeting is over with. .... I will write to you soon on this. 
TB [the Claimant]: I'm afraid you don't have the option of ignoring a grievance request. That is … not an option.
BB: We have had the meeting yesterday! I now give you an option. You can come back to me later today or tomorrow with another member of this University as a friend. And we will have a meeting with minutes. If you refuse to comply with that reasonable request on time then I will make a decision based solely on the meeting we have had and I will write to you.
35.	On 26th July 2001 Dr. Pervez presented the Claimant with a “transfer of supervision” document. The Claimant asked for a copy of the document to allow him to ask a third party for advice. Dr. Pervez refused and demanded that the Claimant sign the document on the spot. The Claimant refused to sign. Dr. Pervez asked the Claimant to produce a written explanation. This the Claimant provided, making reference to his concerns set out in his email of 23rd July 2001 to Prof. Bridge: specifically alleging retaliation in respect of the Protheroe complaint.

36.	 On 27th July 2001 a Memorandum (D241-247) was sent to the Claimant by Prof. Bridge, setting out complaints about the Claimant’s conduct both as a part time lecturer and as a post-graduate student.  He said, 

“I am now recommending to the Dean of Academic Affairs that the Student Disciplinary 
Procedure be invoked ....”

37.	On 30th July 2001 there was an email to the Claimant from Dr. Pervez inviting him to attend a first Research Progress Meeting so as to “assess your M. Phil.  transfer progress.” The Claimant responded raising a number of issues as to what he was prepared to discuss in these meetings. He objected to the term “assess” and re-iterated his claim to have been unable to progress his work in the laboratory since Pervez “ordered his equipment removed.”  

38.	On 1st August 2001 a letter was written to the Claimant by Ruth Farwell, notifying him that she had received a copy of Prof. Bridge's letter and was instigating the disciplinary procedures. On the same day there was a Research Progress Meeting between the Claimant, Dr. Pervez, Dr. Xiao and Prof. Alford. The Claimant claims the real purpose of this meeting was to obtain material to use against him in his disciplinary proceedings. Minutes of the meeting were taken by Dr Pervez. A record of the meeting dated 8th August 2001, not shown to the Claimant but signed by the Claimant’s supervisory team, was subsequently provided to Ruth Farwell. This has been referred to by the Claimant as the ‘Secret Minutes.’  

39.	On the 7th August 2001 emails were sent by the Claimant: (1) to Ruth Farwell requesting clarification of the complaints against him and raising “procedural issues”; (2) to Dr. Pervez claiming there were unresolved “procedural issues” outstanding from the previous meeting; (3) to the SBU Human Resources Department. stating that he had been subjected to a false unsubstantiated and malicious complaint for the purposes of retaliation: the Claimant said that Human Resources should investigate his allegations of retaliation and offer him and his witnesses protection; (4) to Dr Xiao stating that that Dr. Xiao’s behaviour at the Progress Meeting on 1st August 2001 was intimidating and demeaning and threatening a formal complaint, and stating that he no longer wished Dr. Xiao to have “any further role in my Ph.D.  research work”. 

40.	On 8th August 2001 a further Research Progress Meeting was held between the Claimant and his supervisory team. The Claimant insisted that Dr. Xiao was not a member of the supervisory team and Dr. Xiao left the meeting.  On 13th August 2001 Prof. Alford sent the Claimant a review of his research outline.  The Claimant subsequently referred to Prof. Alford’s comments in that review as “a bit pedestrian”. 

41.	On 16th August 2001 there was a further Research Progress Meeting between the Claimant and Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford. Dr. Pervez provided a report on his investigation into the Claimant’s complaints regarding equipment acquired from the Defendant’s Learning Resources Unit.

42.	On 17th August 2001 in a letter to Ruth Farwell the Claimant enclosed a “preliminary” written response to the complaints against him and conditions upon which he was “prepared to engage with the investigation.” 

43.	On 31st August 2001 there was a further Research Progress Meeting between the Claimant and his supervisory team.  On 5th September 2001 a Review of the Claimant’s early research was made by Dr. Xiao in a document headed “Comments of [sic] Thomas Bangert’s 10 Month Report”(D527-8). After a general overview, five matters are itemised as “Merits and Strength” and thirteen points are listed as “Shortcomes and Weakness” [sic] – the latter are mainly criticisms relating to a lack of detail in one way or another.  

44.	On the 12th September 2001 the Disciplinary Hearing in respect of the Claimant’s allegations against Dr. Protheroe took place. On the same day there was a letter from Prof. Bridge to EPRSC in respect of the Claimant’s  supervision (D536).  This letter contains an observation that,

“As a result of [a report written by Prof. Bridge] the Dean has invoked the student disciplinary procedure against Mr Bangert and regarding this Mr Bangert will have an interview with the Dean on the 18th September.  

It is my view that there are grounds for terminating the studentship because of inadequate academic progress, but the issue is being investigated on 18 September [and] need[s] to be resolved before a final decision is taken on academic matters.  The issues of conduct and academic progress are closely interlinked.”    

45.	During September 2001 the Claimant placed an unauthorised “Opinion Piece” in respect of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC on the SBU Telecoms server, a server he had been given the authority to administer by Prof. Bridge. On 25th September 2001 the Claimant emailed Chris Clare (Dean of Engineering Science and Technology) in respect of his complaint against David Protheroe, complaining about procedural irregularities and seeking to invoke the Stage 3 (appeal) procedure. 

46.	On 26th September 2001, according to Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford, a further (delayed) Research Progress Meeting took place between the Claimant and Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford. (The Claimant said it was not clear whether such a meeting did in fact take place.) Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford were reported to have said that the Claimant was so rude at this meeting they concluded further meetings would be unproductive. Prof. Alford was asked by Prof. Bridge to set out in writing what happened at the meeting, which he did on Monday 1st October 2001 (D576) and this note was sent to Dr. Farwell. This note concludes with the words, 

“I can see no evidence of work on the Ph.D. since his 10 month report despite the fact that the supervisory team has requested evidence that progress towards the transfer report be presented.”
  
47.	On 26 September 2001 Prof. Bridge reported his findings in respect of the Claimant’s complaint against David Protheroe. His conclusions were that the allegations were unfounded and vexatious.  He added that there was prima facie evidence the Claimant had been harassing members of staff by inundating them with emails. As a teacher the Claimant had ignored University policy and reasonable instructions and should not be permitted to teach again.  He set out a summary of the evidence he had heard and his findings of fact. 

48.	On 27th September 2001 the Claimant wrote to Prof. Bridge noting concerns about the proposed ‘supervisory team,’ requesting an external supervisor. The Claimant raised a formal grievance against Dr. Pervez and Alan Nigrin on the grounds they have been bullying him (D560-566: the grounds cover three pages and are mainly detailed allegations of verbal abuse, insults and disruption of his work by Mr Nigrin, with whom Dr Pervez has “colluded.”) 

49.	On 28th September 2001 Ruth Farwell notified the Claimant that publication of his opinion piece constituted a breach of SBU's Code of Practice for Web Users and a breach of student discipline. On 28th September 2001 the Claimant disputed that the publication constituted a breach of student discipline.

50.	On 2nd October 2001 the Claimant had a meeting with Prof. Imhof. On 5th October 2001 the Claimant’s student disciplinary meeting with Dr. Farwell took place.  On 9th October 2001 the Claimant sent Dr. Farwell his response to the allegations against him regarding his opinion piece published on the School’s website (D638) and on 10th October 2001 the Claimant sent Dr. Farwell a detailed response to the allegations in respect of the allegations of breach of student discipline referred to her by Prof. Bridge (D642-654).

51.	On 11th October 2001 Prof. Bridge notified the Claimant that he could not have an external supervisor.

“Your supervisory team fully meet the criteria of the Research Degrees Committee. As for your request for an External Supervisor to be appointed I would point out that there is already an external member of your supervisory team who has been approved by the Research Degree Committee. He is Professor Ian Marshall, Head of Internet Research at BT research Laboratories, Martelsham.

“You had regular meetings with him and he has complained to me (as you knew from previous correspondence) about your rudeness and lack of progress. I see no reason why I should expose any other external person to your unacceptable behaviour.”	
52.	 On the same day the Claimant notified Prof. Bridge that he wished to invoke a stage 2 grievance against Alan Nigrin (lab technician in charge) and against Dr. Pervez relating to the claim that he had been bullied by Mr. Nigrin. Dr. Pervez had “passively and actively colluded [in] and covered up” this bullying. Included in his supporting documentation was a detailed account of exchanges between himself and Mr. Nigrin which he claimed were reconstructed from notes he made at the time (D667) – although the document actually appears to be a transcript.
  
53.	Also on 11th October 2001 the Claimant notified Prof. Clare that he wished to invoke a “stage 1” complaint under the student complaint procedure and a “stage 2” complaint under the staff complaint procedure against Prof. Bridge, alleging inter alia that Prof. Bridge had bullied him, made false allegations against him, forced members of staff to make false allegations against him and retaliated against him because of the grievance he had raised against Dr. Protheroe (D670-74).

54.	On 30th October 2001 Prof. Bridge reported on the outcome of his investigation into the Claimant’s complaint against Mr. Nigrin and Dr. Pervez. He dismissed the complaint by saying “each side liked giving as good as it gets” (D722). In respect of the Claimant’s claim that his relationship with Mr. Nigrin had affected his Ph.D.  studies, Prof. Bridge concluded that, 

“It is true that your Ph.D.  studies are not progressing at all. But there are more straightforward reasons for this already discussed elsewhere under the current Disciplinary Investigation.”

55.	On 1st November 2001 a report by Ruth Farwell concluded that the Claimant had   engaged in gross misconduct by (a) repeatedly obstructing the work of the University; (b) publishing the opinion piece on the web; and (c) misusing his EPSRC studentship and spending his time on other matters as opposed to legitimate research. She recommended that the Claimant’s studentship be terminated and he be excluded from the SBU. (D739-743). 

56.	On 8th November 2001 Rhodri Phillips, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, wrote to notify the Claimant of his decision to follow the recommendation in Dr Farwell’s Report. (D744).

57.	On 12th November 2001 the Deputy Vice-Chancellor's letter was served personally on the Claimant, and he was asked to leave SBU premises. 

58.	Despite the extraordinarily large amount of documentation in the case, that outline history appears to summarise most of the agreed sequence of relevant events,  so far as was necessary at least for the parties’ conduct of the trial, and there is little dispute as to the actual order of events. 

The pleadings and the Claimant’s opening

59.	The particulars of claim, which was settled by counsel, is a document which extends to no less than 60 paragraphs set out over 20 pages.  Many issues raised in the pleading were not dealt with in the Claimant’s witness statement or in evidence. Other issues which arose in evidence had not been pleaded. However, as the Claimant at trial was acting in person, Mr Hamilton, counsel for the Defendant, in closing said that the Defendant would not take pleading points against the Claimant in respect of his evidence. Instead the Defendant University accepts there is an “overarching allegation by the Claimant of bad faith on the part of the Defendant’s employees.”  The Defendant accepts that if the Claimant proves bad faith on the part of one or more of the Defendant’s employees, directly involved with his research, the Defendant will be in breach of a contractual obligation it owed to the Claimant. This concession is made on the basis that the contractual agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant included an implied term that both parties would act reasonably and in good faith.  That seems to me to be a sensible and responsible course.  
Implied terms
60.	It is accepted on both sides that the Defendant’s Research Degrees Regulations applied both to the Claimant and to the defendant. However, there seems to remain a dispute between the parties as to what other terms should be implied into their contractual agreement. The Claimant asserts a number of specific duties should be implied – see paragraph 56 of the Particulars of Claim, where, after expressly pleading that the defendant and its employees or other agents, and each of them, would act in good faith, six further allegations are set out.  The theme common to each of these specific allegations is in fact good faith.  However, at 56.3, for example, it is alleged that it was an implied term that “the defendant, acting through its employees and other agents, would take reasonable steps to retain the confidence of the Claimant as a research student if the Claimant himself acted reasonably.”  Further, at 56.5 it is pleaded that “if the Claimant did not agree to a proposed replacement supervisor, then the research degrees committee's approval for that proposed replacement had to be obtained before he could ... be required by the defendant to accept that proposed replacement supervisor.” The Defendant asserts that only the usual term that the parties must act reasonably and in good faith can be implied. It submits the terms which the Claimant says must be implied are covered by these broad terms.  I propose to deal with this aspect of the case upon the usual basis, i.e. that any term can only be implied into a contract if it is necessary in a business sense to give efficacy to the contract.  Moreover, a term ought not to be implied unless, on considering the whole matter, it is clear that it must have been intended by the parties. The whole case at trial proceeded upon the basis that the defendant had a duty to act in good faith towards the Claimant, and the Claimant submitted that there was clear evidence now available which demonstrated that the defendant had in fact acted in bad faith in its dealings with him during the year 2001, if not earlier (through the agency of Prof. Marshall).  No consideration was given at trial or in closing submissions to any lesser basis, absent bad faith.  I therefore accept the Defendant’s submission on this point.
The Claimant’s case in opening
61.	The basis of the case as opened and subsequently argued by the Claimant himself was as follows.  The reason for his being admitted to the course which should eventually have resulted in his obtaining a Ph.D. was that he had been an exceptionally good student when he was reading for his M.Sc. at the University. He had achieved the top marks in his year. He drew attention to the contrast with one allegation that the defendants made as a reason for discontinuing his course and excluding him from the University – i.e. that he was a very poor student. Those two positions were, he submitted, wholly inconsistent.
62.	The next question was what his research student contract entailed.  That, it was submitted, was a primary question of importance. The status of his contract, he accepted, was not analogous to that of an employee. He pointed out that there were abundant authorities on employment law but very little authority on the construction of contracts for research students. He pointed to the “tripartite” status of the contract which he had: it was not simply a contract with SBU, as the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (“EPSRC”) were in effect parties to the contract between himself and SBU as he had an EPSRC studentship. The EPSRC were not simply funding him.  He submitted that research students work independently, and are assigned a supervisor who is expected to be “their representative, their advocate and their salesman. This is particularly so when EPSRC are involved in a novel project. The supervisor is expected to further the project. The research student’s supervisor is expected to facilitate that process.”
63.	In the course of taking me through the relevant documents Mr Bangert referred to the Research Degrees Regulations. He drew attention to paragraph 1.4 above. He then began to refer to a regulation dealing with the exceptional case of the award of a Ph.D. for published work.  I stopped him as that did not appear to be relevant in this case, and after some discussion he agreed.  (Concern over the eventual publication of the product of his work, and its potential value commercially, as distinct from the achievement of academic skills by the training involved in doing the research and writing up the results, was a point which was mentioned more than once during the case.)
64.	The Claimant referred to the role of the supervisor under the regulations, and supervision generally, and when dealing with para. 5.4 observed that in this case there was an external adviser proposed to contribute specialist knowledge -- Ian Marshall -- who is referred to in his application. It was the defendants' case, said Mr Bangert, that Ian Marshall was an external collaborator, but, “I say he was proposed but I never agreed.” That is an issue of fact which requires resolution.
65.	Paragraph 5.6 was important because there was some dispute about the arrangements therein referred to. He then went to E68 & E74 -- the section referring to grievances (although part of that appeared to be missing in the sense that it had been photocopied in such a way as to cut off some material relevant to grievance procedures.) Nothing seemed, in the end, to turn on those provisions.
66.	He then went to E77. His project course title therein referred to was “Dynamic Traffic Management for ATM switching networks.” One should note and compare that with C 12 where the title is given as “a virtual port switching protocol to extend IP for real-time data.” At trial bundle C tab 11 p. 95 in the acceptance letter the title of the project course is given in identical terms to that in trial bundle C 12.
67.	In trial bundle C in particular reference was made to p. 3 in respect of the defendants' claim that his work was not empirically based; p. 4 in respect of facilities; p. 12 in respect of the 10 month report which was approved by the defendants; p. 25 in respect of implementation; p. 26 in respect of collaboration; p. 27 testing: Mr Bangert submitted that the dispute occurred precisely at the period when testing was taking place, or should have been taking place, during 2001; and he referred to p. 28 in respect of publication.
68.	Mr Bangert drew attention to p. 89, and to his original Director of Studies’ (Dr Peng’s) broad approval of his work on 16 February 2002. It was then, submitted Mr Bangert, “that the problems started.” Mr Bangert took me to trial bundle E tab 45, to the witness statement of Ian Marshall.  There is an extract from the e-mail sent by Ian Marshall to Dr Pervez. The full e-mail is to be found at trial bundle C p. 202, and is set out above in the agreed history. On a number of occasions, however, Mr Bangert has referred to this as “the most important document in the case” and “the crux of the case.” This is because, in his submission, it is evidence of the conspiracy against him.  That conspiracy was, he contends, the cause of his Ph.D.  course being terminated and of his being excluded from the SBU. 
69.	Referring to trial bundle E tab 45 at 305 to 306 where part of this e-mail is set out, Mr Bangert said, “I interpret this as follows. ‘I would like you to terminate his studies, and this is how to do it: force him to produce a transfer report and he won't be able to do it and you can get rid of him.’” 
70.	The timing of this, said Mr Bangert, was important because it reflected a conversation in September 2000 “one year before the conflict.” It was addressed to Dr Pervez. “Dr Pervez should have taken steps to protect his research student from attack by a British Telecom employee [Marshall] who was in competition with his research student, in respect of the same area of research. He should have taken steps to protect the Claimant from the predations of Mr Marshall. There is no document to show he did a single thing to protect him.”
71.	Whilst all had been well until Dr Peng left in January to February 2001, in the summer of that year from the end of May through June and July a dispute took place which led to the termination of the Claimant’s research studentship. There are no documents to show what should have happened about supervision after his director of studies left.
72.	It was clear that at one stage Dr Pervez, who was one of the original supervisory team, was having difficulties and brought in Prof. Alford. There was nothing done between January and May 2001, however, submitted Mr Bangert, no supervisory activity of any kind. It was on 21 May 2001 that Prof. Alford was involved. 
73.	Mr Bangert then took me to the chronology which both parties had contributed to, although neither agreed all entries contributed by the other. I have already made reference to significant parts of this. “My case” he said, summarising it, “is that they [Prof Alford and Dr Pervez in particular] were purporting to supervise me properly whilst secretly plotting to get rid of me.” Page 211 makes this clear: “I hope we can get rid of him” is a phrase which must refer to Prof. Bridge and, the Claimant submitted, demonstrates the existence of the conspiracy.

Issues of fact

74.	The central issue of fact identified by the Claimant is whether or not the University, through its staff acting in their capacity as responsible members of the University, were guilty of bad faith in their dealings with the Claimant, whether to the extent that a conspiracy to remove the Claimant actually existed between them, or otherwise. 

75.	A conspiracy is alleged between Prof.  Bridge  and Dr. Pervez, in particular, to which other members of the defendants’ academic and technical staff and Prof. Marshall may, the Claimant contends, have been party, to terminate his research studentship for inappropriate (at least) or grossly improper (at worst) reasons.  However, the Claimant submits that even if his case is not made out to the full extent of proof of such a conspiracy, he is entitled to succeed upon the basis of clear breaches by the Defendants of implied terms to act in good faith towards him.

76.	The Defendant concedes, as I understand it, that I should ask myself whether there is any evidence of bad faith towards the Claimant on the part of Dr. Pervez, Prof. Alford, or Prof. Bridge, or on the part of Prof. Marshall (as an agent of the Defendant University,) individually or acting in concert, towards the Claimant?  If so, the Defendants would concede that they were in breach of contract.  (They do, however, raise a significant point upon causation even if a breach is proved.)

77.	Whilst there is a plethora of documentary evidence in the case (over 2,000 pages in seven lever-arch files) much will necessarily depend upon my assessments of the relative credibility of the witnesses who gave oral evidnce:  in particular which witnesses I found to be truthful and reliable, which untruthful (if any) or unreliable.

78.	If only because of their individual involvement in the long history of the case, all the witnesses must have some degree of personal interest in the outcome.  It is therefore perhaps particularly important that I ask  myself which witnesses were able to demonstrate detachment, objectivity, and ability to be self-critical when being asked to reflect upon their actions and their motives with hindsight, and which (if any) witnesses showed no, or little, evidence of such matters.

79.	On the question of whether there is any evidence of bad faith against the Claimant, the following particular points arise: 

(1)	Did Prof. Marshall lobby the Defendants to “get rid” of the Claimant?
(2)	Between January 2001 and May 2001, did Dr. Pervez ask the Claimant to provide details of the progress he was making with his research?
(3)	Was it the Claimant who raised the issue of supervision with Prof. Alford in May 2001?
(4)	Were Mr. Nigrin or other laboratory technicians deliberately obstructing the Claimant’s empirical work?
(5)	If so, were they acting in bad faith?
(6)	Did Dr. Pervez or Prof. Alford or both fail to intervene to prevent the technicians obstructing the Claimant’s research?
(7)	If so, were they acting in bad faith?
(8)	In June 2001 did Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford deliberately attempt to sabotage the Claimant’s research by instructing Mr. Nigrin to remove the Claimant’s personal equipment from the Laboratory?
(9)	If so, were they acting in bad faith?
(10)	From about June/July 2001, did Prof. Bridge, Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford conspire to “get rid” of the Claimant from the Defendant University, either,  (a)by requiring him to complete a Transfer Report, when they knew it was impossible for the Claimant to do so without completing his empirical work (as a result of the effects of obstructive behaviour by technical staff or otherwise;) or (b) by ignoring the evidence he produced of the progress he had made with his research; or (c) by attempting to force him to agree to a supervisory team that included Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford who were actively trying to have him removed from the Defendant University; or (d) by refusing to take any steps to find an external supervisor for the Claimant.
(11)	Did Prof.  Bridge  act in bad faith, either (a) at a meeting on 23rd July 2001, by threatening the Claimant with withdrawal of funding and failure if he did not drop his complaint against Dr. Prothroe; or (b) in July 2001, by soliciting negative references and feedback in respect of the Claimant, in order to be able to have disciplinary proceedings instigated against him; or (c) by his memorandum dated July 2001, causing disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the Claimant that led to his exclusion, knowing his allegations against the Claimant were untrue or trivial.
80.	There are some discrete issues of fact on matters not directly concerned with bad faith, which require resolution:
(1)	Was Ian Marshall in fact an external collaborator, or was he “proposed, but never agreed”?
(2)	What part (if any) did Prof. Marshall in fact play in supervision of the Claimant as an external collaborator?
(3)	If Prof. Marshall did take part at all, when did such participation cease? And why?
81.	 There are also certain other questions which seem to me to arise in respect of the Claimant’s own conduct:

(1)	After Dr Peng’s departure, did he actively seek a replacement primary supervisor? If so, what evidence is there of when this was first raised?

(2)	During the period March – September 2001 was the Claimant applying himself properly to his research, in particular taking into account the need for preparation of the transfer report, or was he instead (for example) not working diligently with that need in mind, or pursuing matters which were distractions from it, or both?

(3)	When the need to complete the transfer report was raised with him what was the The Claimant’s actual response? Did he provide Prof. Alford with a variety of material which could have been the ‘bulk’ of the transfer report?

(4)	What were the reasons for such response as he did make? 

(5)	How did that response appear (objectively) to Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez?

(6)	Was the Claimant specifically asked to to sign the transfer of supervision form by Prof.  Imhoff?  

(7)	If so, did he refuse to do so?  

(8)	If so, what was the reason for the Claimant’s refusal to sign the transfer of supervision form?

The evidence
The Claimant
82.	In his witness statement the Claimant said that Prof. Alford had explained at the outset that Dr. Peng had himself only a recently completed his Ph.D.  and so did not have experience supervising Ph.D.  students and, in effect, that as Dr. Pervez’s strengths lay in administration, Prof. Alford would be acting as a ‘backup’ supervisor. He further explained he would not be able to act as primary supervisor because the proposed area of study was outside his area of expertise and neither would he be able to assist with the actual research work itself, however, he did have ample experience in supervising Ph.D.  students and his input would primarily be in assisting with the supervision process and administrative matters; to ensure that university and funding body guidelines were met. Prof. Alford explained that Dr. Peng would be the Claimant’s director of studies (principal or primary supervisor) and he would in effect have 2 other associate supervisors. Prof. Alford (he said) called this arrangement a ‘supervisory team’. 
83.	Dr. Pervez (said the Claimant in his witness statement) said that they were very impressed with his results for his M. Sc. studies and that he had been selected on the basis of those results. The Claimant told Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford that he would think over their offer and let them know within a few days. He continued,
“From the SBU and EPSRC documents available to me I learned that the supervisor (or supervisors in the case of joint supervision) would be crucial to the success of my studies and that a good personal relationship between research student and supervisor would be vitally important. …. Supervisors are expected and indeed required to be a source of encouragement and stimulation. The supervisor (or supervisors) is generally the only person (or people) who will be the main point of contact throughout the postgraduate degree. In general, a supervisor is expected to act as a guide, mentor and representative. Ph.D.  research is also the final stage when a student becomes an academic in his own right. An additional role of a supervisor is to introduce the research student to the academic work environment. The academic environment can be particularly fractious as individuals or factions compete for resources, operate personal grievances or strive for reputation. Within this environment the supervisor has a duty of care to represent the interests of the research student. He must do his best to obtain the resources the Ph.D.  student needs to carry out his research, to promote his research inside or outside of the university, and to represent the Ph.D.  student to the best of his abilities within the internal political framework of the university.”
84.	He went on to draw an analogy with the confidential relationship between a legal adviser and a client, and later added, 
“As a Ph.D.  research student I discussed the matter at length with Dr. Pervez, Prof. Alford and Prof. Imhof on a number of occasions. To the best of my recollection, all three set out these views either themselves or voiced their agreement with me that these constitute the core values of Ph.D.  supervision.”
85.	The relevance of all this, he said in his witness statement, was as follows: 
“The Defendant claims that during my tenure at SBU that I ‘annoyed’ or ‘insulted’ many of the members of staff or external experts I came into contact with and that this generally put is the reason I was ultimately excluded. While this is not a defence against the specific instances of alleged breach of contract set out in this claim, the Defendant seeks to set out that while it accepts that there may have been minor irregularities that on the whole the university was justified in seeking to ‘exclude’ me. To test this defence it is therefore necessary to have regard to the details relevant to this general allegation.
“Furthermore, once the Defendant took the decision to terminate my employment and to seek to ‘exclude’ me from the university, it took considerable effort to present this case as if the university was acting on various complaints that had been made against me. As a result a significant amount of the Defendant’s defence is composed of a list of various complaints made about me while at the same time seeking to deny that I had any significant role or responsibilities. The Defendant suggests that the only member of staff or research student with which there were any significant difficulties was the Claimant. The Defendant therefore wishes to present a general view that is the polar opposite of the one presented by the Claimant; that it was the Claimant who through his actions caused problems and whose unreasonable and disproportionate behaviour caused complaints to be made about him. It is important to note that it is the Claimant who has throughout this case raised various complaints or grievances, which he sought to have properly investigated. All of the Defendant’s allegations post-date a decision made by the Defendant to ‘get rid of him’ and are in effect self-generated.  It is also important to note that many of these allegations may be considered minor matters which under normal circumstances would not be worthy of note. Indeed most of the allegations were dismissed by the Defendant’s own internal investigation. Despite its own investigator having dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated the Defendant continues to rely on many of them in its Defence. As a result if one does not wish to dismiss the Defence outright, it is important to have regard to the day to day events that the Defence refers to and the individuals involved.”    
86.	Having agreed to accept the offer of a Ph.D. research studentship, the Claimant said that all began well.
“Everything went well initially. I quickly settled on a research topic, subsequently approved by the university, set up a web server for the research group (approved by the head of the school, Prof. Bryan Bridge), received part-time employment as a tutor (assisting Dr. Peng deliver laboratory sessions). My 10 month report (on my chosen research topic) was approved without any major criticism and on the first submission and I was able to publish a paper outlining my research at a minor academic conference. 
“I rapidly established a reputation for working effectively and getting the job done, particularly in the laboratory. To the best of my recall, I rarely took even a single day of absence, worked long hours (I would often be in the laboratory until 10pm in the evening), and even on occasion would work on weekends.)”
87.	As will be seen when the evidence given on behalf of the defendant is dealt with, not everyone else at SBU seems to have had the same high opinion of the Claimant's reputation as he did himself.  For his part, in his witness statement the Claimant makes many pejorative references to the academic abilities and achievements of those who were established members of the University's staff as lecturers and with whom he came into contact in their various roles.  Some of these references contain imputations which would amount to serious allegations against professional people.  None of these was pursued at the hearing, however, whether in cross-examination of witnesses who were referred to in this way in the witness statement, or otherwise.  In the circumstances I take no account of such passages, nor do I derive any assistance from the lengthy passages in the witness statement which are devoted to the internal politics at the SBU, save to the very limited extent that these were canvassed in cross-examination by the Claimant as being relevant to the issue of the bad faith he alleges to have underlain his treatment by the Defendant, and which he claims to amount to a breach of contract. 
88.	Early on in his Ph. D. Studentship, the Claimant was invited to assist (as was customary with postgraduate researchers) in teaching one group of students, and taking the laboratory sessions of Dr. Peng’s Internet course units.  He was, however, faced with considerable deficiencies in the form of suitable laboratory equipment.
“I resolved this by putting together an ad-hoc networking laboratory with equipment borrowed from other departments, salvaged from equipment discarded by other groups and ... would occasionally resort to purchasing equipment myself. [At the end of the Spring Term in 2000,] I started having lengthy discussions with Dr Pervez  in respect of the networking laboratory. Dr. Pervez told me that he was looking to formalize and expand what I had done and asked to draft a plan for a new telecommunications and networking laboratory, and particularly a list of equipment needed. Dr. Pervez told me that he was looking to obtain funding from the school to revise the laboratory and he was looking to me to direct these works. He told me that it was unlikely that he could obtain funding to pay me for this work directly but that I would be compensated by being given my own course units to teach, as well as being able to use the network laboratory for my own Ph.D.  research when it was not used for teaching. I agreed to these proposals.”
89.	Another group of students to whom he was asked to teach fairly elementary computer science were, it seems, the group under Dr Protheroe, the overall course director. Unfortunately differences arose between the Claimant and Dr Protheroe. Dr Protheroe complained to the Claimant about various matters, including his teaching techniques. 
90.	Eventually, as I mentioned earlier, the Claimant made a formal complaint himself against Dr Protheroe.  The initial claim of harassment arose (it seems) in an email from him to Dr Protheroe dated 27 November 2000 The email is entitled: “Workplace Harassment on M. Sc. Prep. Introduction to Programming Unit”.  In the opening paragraph the Claimant alleged that Dr Protheroe was intentionally subjecting him to workplace harassment. It began by referring to an email apparently sent the same day by Dr Protheroe:  
“On 27.11.2000 you [i.e. Dr Protheroe] sent me the following email: ‘If you [i.e. the Claimant] are unwilling to do this then please say so immediately - you need not attend any further classes and another member of staff will teach the remainder of the unit.’  I [i.e. the Claimant] must insist that we pay close attention to the word “attend”.  I do not “attend” classes, I am the lecturer, and as a lecturer I give (or teach) these classes....” 
91.	In briefest summary, the complaint was that various instructions had been given to the Claimant by Dr Protheroe about the manner in which the Claimant was to teach the course.  The Claimant disagreed with those instructions. Following further email correspondence, on the 26 January 2001, the Claimant made a formal complaint by email of harassment. This complaint, and its investigation and adjudication, formed a continuing source of friction within the part of the SBU in which the Claimant worked, for months thereafter.  Its primary significance (again, in briefest summary) is that the Claimant alleges that members of the staff, including senior members of staff, took so dim a view of the Claimant’s conduct in making the complaint against one of their colleagues that they became positively hostile to the Claimant, to the extent of taking retaliatory action against him, including (probably) actively seeking to get rid of him from the SBU by underhand means.  That, therefore, is one of the reasons alleged for the existence of a motive for the bad faith which he claims led (eventually) to his being excluded from the SBU. 
92.	The Claimant’s evidence in his witness statement went on to make a number of observations on various members of staff involved in the dispute. Versions of these follow, set out under the headings given to them by the Claimant, edited only to remove scurrilous references or personally abusive observations which were not pursued in cross-examination. 
93.	Anjum Pervez. The Claimant said this:
“Dr. Pervez was technically ‘head’ of the Telecoms group and despite having been at the university for only a few years held a position equivalent to Dr. Protheroe. The Telecoms group was classed as a ‘research group’ by the university, which would later be upgraded to a ‘research centre’. In fact this was a shell structure. There was in fact actual no research laboratory, no actual director of a research programme, no genuine research funding and in fact no organized research activity of any kind. There was at the time (prior to my arrival) a single senior lecturer who generally had one or 2 research students, but he worked very much on his own. His output would be mostly review papers and he was unable to carry out actual research (at the time) because he had no funding and no research laboratory. In fact he had similar problems using the teaching laboratory that I initially had. I had intimate knowledge of this because I would at times share the office with one of his research students who would confide in me in respect of the problems they faced. Although it was not actually ‘research funding’, for statistical purposes the university would count the Ph.D.  studentships for the research students (that is, the funding for their fees and maintenance grant) as research funding. Prior to the dispute I dealt with Dr. Pervez only in respect of employment issues. As I was an academic employee for most of this period the relationship I had with Dr. Pervez was as employee rather than as a research student.” 
94.	Neil Alford. The Claimant dealt with Prof. Neil Alford in a more deferential    way in his witness statement.  He  was,
“one of the few examples of a ‘genuine’ academic at SBU. He did very little teaching, but had his own research laboratory with independent external funding. He was a respected researcher with an international reputation and had a solid history of successfully supervising Ph.D.  students. It was generally acknowledged that he was working on genuinely ground-breaking and interesting research. He did not work on his own, but directed a research team which was actively engaged in this. His area of research was, however, in the materials science which was entirely unrelated to my research into computer networking. Prof. Alford was technically listed as a member of my ‘supervisory team’ but the only contact I had with him prior to Dr. Peng’s departure was at the initial interview. Prof. Alford was not actually a member of the Telecoms group and had little if any normal interaction with the group. Having detailed and private discussions with him later on, he gave the impression that he only became involved reluctantly, that he wished to focus on his research work and was reluctant to become involved in local political matters (such as this case). I received the impression that he was torn between the merits of my case, the implicit dishonesty of Prof. Bryan Bridge’s imperative in this case and his conscience. He was at any rate unwilling to stand up to Prof. Bridge and place his career at risk.”
95.	Perry Xiao. Dr. Xiao, the Claimant said, had in the previous year been a Ph.D.  student under Prof. Imhof, who had helped him obtain a position upon completing his research degree. 
“His research topic had been on the obscure topic of skin transpiration rates, but he wished to learn the basic principles of computer networking so he could teach it at undergraduate level. Prior to the dispute I did not have regular contact with him, but we had for a time collaborated in the network laboratory to construct a ‘supercomputer’ – using a special version of UNIX that was able to bind a number of small networked computers into a single much more powerful computing device. As a result he had for a time attended the network laboratory regularly and on an informal basis I had taught him some of the basic principles of Internet technology.”
96.	Bryan Bridge. Prof. Bridge was at the time head of EEIE.  The Claimant had this to say about him:
“He was reputed to have a degree from Oxford University and to be a member of the British ‘upper class’. By reputation he appeared to be very similar in nature to Dr. Pervez, someone of modest academic ability who is able to effectively employ the ability of others. His modus-operandi being to use the university resources to find and work with others who were gifted researchers and attach himself to them.” 
97.	Ian Marshall. Ian Marshall was at the time of the Claimant’s first involvement with him a senior researcher with the research division of British Telecom (“BT” Exact). 
“He had the reputation of having once been a gifted researcher in the field of fibre optic data transmission, but it was now said that he was redundant to BT’s research needs. As a result he was using the resources available to him to cast about for an alternative position. Despite the position he had obtained within BT as head of a research group, in respect of education he had only an undergraduate degree from a minor university. Like Dave Protheroe he was essentially a self-educated but talented technician whom good fortune had dealt a winning hand. His entire career had at the time been with BT, where he had advanced from a quite minor position. As a result if he lost his position at BT it was unlikely another company would be prepared to give him a position of equal stature, and he would have to start his career anew. Given that BT was essentially ‘putting him out to pasture’, Mr Marshall feared this would be the case. He therefore sought to do what many people in a similar situation would do, which is to seek a teaching position. Unfortunately he did not have the academic qualifications to enable him to do this. He had neither a Ph.D.  degree nor an M. Sc.  degree.”
98.	The Claimant pointed out that in a witness statement dated 11 March 2004 Prof. Marshall had said,
“I was not Mr Bangert's supervisor and I have never held myself out as such....”
99.	The Claimant continued, 
“During my time at SBU I only briefly encountered Ian Marshall 3 or 4 times and we exchanged no more than a small number of emails. All of these emails were of a personal nature and did not deal with my research topic. Mr Marshall himself has described these emails as dealing ‘largely with issues relating to Artificial Intelligence and computational learning,’ a subject matter that was not within the area of Mr Marshall’s expertise and clearly not the subject of my Ph.D.  research studies. At no time was Mr Marshall involved in the supervision of my Ph.D.  studies, or indeed was he involved in any other capacity. It was hoped that he might be able to advise and to assist (particularly with respect to research funding), but it quickly became apparent that there would not be collaboration of any kind and that was the end of the matter as far as I was concerned. Neither Ian Marshall nor BT were named in my 10 month report or in any other document relating to my Ph.D.  other than the initial registration of my research studies. ... I had a brief discussion with Ian Marshall only on one occasion, which to the best of my recollection was early September 2000, when we had a group visit to BT’s research facilities. I asked Mr Marshall if he could introduce me to a researcher who was working on a topic related to my research topic. He agreed to do this.... Mr Marshall’s role therefore in respect of my research studentship was limited precisely to that of gatekeeper or contact person within BT. .... In my limited experience with Mr Marshall, he had developed the manner of expressing his sentiments in an unreservedly forthright manner. Mr Marshall was clearly a gifted industrial researcher and a highly intelligent talented individual but he was not an academic and was unsuited to being so. He was in fact not qualified to supervise Ph.D.  research students in any capacity. .... although BT in effect paid SBU for him to be appointed as visiting scholar he did not complete the very minimal requirements of this appointment either. Therefore even his claim to the honourific [sic] title of ‘visiting professor’ fails.  More generally, Mr Marshall’s unsuitability to the role of an academic is amply demonstrated by his actions in this case. Mr Marshall’s persistent attacks and determined campaign against someone who he had met only briefly and to whom he had no direct connection show a character flaw that ultimately derives from an extreme focus from an early age to a very restrictive field of study and a lack of  personal development that comes from a more broad and general education. It is plain from his own witness statement that he was acting for a period of approximately one year to the end of ending my research studies and lobbying SBU to ‘get rid of me’.” [Emphasis added.]
Despite the length and detailed nature of this passage, the reason for the “persistent attacks and determined campaign” by Prof. Marshall was not made clear.
100.	Prof. Imhof was the director of another research group within the school. 
“Like Prof. Alford he was an active and able researcher who by misfortune had ended up at SBU. Prof. Imhof was head of the school’s research degrees committee and had the responsibility of dealing with problems relating to research students. Prof. Imhof had a reputation of being moderate, supportive and reasonable.”
101.	‘Bullying.’ When the Claimant began his  Ph.D.  studies he and other students immediately ran into conflict with the lab technician Mr Nigrin for re-arranging the desks and other furniture in their office space at the laboratory to set up  computers with Dr. Peng. Mr. Nigrin “was literally apoplectic” and demanded to know who had re-arranged the furniture, ... 
“[when we told him] we had done this with the approval of Dr Peng and the director of the laboratory (Dr Pervez) ... Mr Nigrin took control of his emotional state, and stated coldly that I should make sure that I did not forget my status and that he would be starting a dossier on me ...” 
This was put forward by the Claimant as the first example of ‘bullying’ by Mr Nigrin. 
102.	The Claimant said that although initially frustrated by Alan Nigrin, he rapidly learned how to deal with him effectively. When something was needed, some piece of equipment to be repaired or something purchased, the Claimant would make a request to Mr Nigrin and if the request was not dealt with promptly he did the work or purchased the equipment himself.  This seemed a very sensible approach. Indeed, he said, Dr Pervez was supportive of him.
“I found that rather than reprimanding me for any of these encounters with Mr Nigrin, Dr Pervez seemed to positively encourage them. On hearing that I had acquired some minor item or other he would propose that the school should purchase more of them. Over time the cumulative effect of these changes meant that by the end of the first academic year the laboratory had a fully functioning micro-internet – a functioning computer network whose network traffic could be controlled systematically and analyzed. It was very rudimentary with quite old computers but they used the same unix software used by the servers that composed the actual Internet and it communicated with the same Internet Protocol. It was very popular with students and I began to receive requests from students to do project work on the ‘network’.”
103.	The Claimant said Mr Nigrin also became less hostile and they managed to establish a kind of working relationship.  On receiving positive feedback from students, Dr Pervez asked him to draw up plans for an expanded network laboratory.
104.	As part of these discussions,
“I told Dr Pervez that I was happy to put together a laboratory network for teaching purposes, but for my Ph.D.  I would need a similar network to carry out my research. As a result Dr Pervez made the agreement with me that I could use the funds to build a dual use network, one which could be used for both teaching and research – as long as teaching had priority, and it could be used by other researchers as well. …As a result by the end of the first year I was in a rather privileged position in comparison to the other Ph.D.  students. I had the keys to the laboratory, administered the Telecoms group web server as well as designing and building the future laboratory network. Having keys to the laboratory might appear to be a minor matter, but in fact many of the academics did not have the keys, and they would be forced to ask Mr Nigrin to unlock the door when they wanted access.” 
105.	Dr Protheroe. It was through the process of building the laboratory computer network, the Claimant said, that he first indirectly encountered Dr Protheroe. Initially the funding was only for equipment which was absolutely essential such as network cards.  The Claimant had specifically selected particular network cards because of their suitability for use on a teaching/research network. These were expensive. Dr Protheroe on his own initiative replaced them with inexpensive but unsuitable ones. The matter might have been resolved quietly between Dr Pervez and Dr Protheroe had Dr Protheroe admitted the mistake and restored the original order. As he refused to do this Dr Pervez had to go to Prof. Bridge to resolve the matter.
106.	As a result of this Dr Protheroe was forced to restore the orginal order, and as a side effect the incident became widely known throughout the school.  Dr Protheroe was not officially ‘sanctioned,’ but 
“as we would later discover it was a blow to Dr Protheroe’s career. However, it had the unfortunate side effect of also bringing me to the attention of Protheroe who began to see me as the architect of both his personal humiliation and the loss of funding for his laboratory.” 
107.	In the second year of his Ph.D. studies, Dr. Pervez obtained a course unit for the Claimant to teach. The course was technically at M. Sc. level, but it was ‘introductory M. Sc.’ This programme had in previous years been under Dr Pervez’s management but by chance responsibility had been transferred to Dr Protheroe. As a result rather than working under the management of Dr Pervez the Claimant for this particular course unit worked under Dr Protheroe. 
108.	Initially everything went well, the Claimant said.  It was not until approximately half way through the term that difficulties arose. Suddenly and without notice, he said, he received a memorandum from Dave Protheroe informing him that he was to revert back to what had been done the previous year. Prof. Bridge became involved and he decided that the Claimant’s teaching methods were appropriate and that he was following the course guide. “The general view,” said the Claimant, “was that this was a further ‘defeat’ for Protheroe.”
109.	As time went on, however, the Claimant said there were ‘dirty tricks’ which made it increasingly difficult for the Claimant to teach the course unit. As a result he made a complaint that Dr Protheroe was harassing him and Dr Protheroe was called to a meeting with Prof. Bridge. 
110.	Before this dispute with Dr Protheroe, the Claimant said that he did not have any significant issues with respect to the supervision of his research studies. 
Dr Peng’s departure and subsequent developments regarding supervision
111.	Dr Peng left the university in January 2001.  No-one was formally appointed to replace him. The Claimant did not deal specifically in evidence with what he himself had done in respect of this development. He said in his witness statement that both Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford denied that they were primary supervisor, but he did not make clear at all when these denials were made nor what steps he had taken as a result of this to remedy the situation. (Dr Pervez says that he made regular contact between February and June 2001, to ask for updates, but received no positive response from the Claimant, which is why he involved Prof. Alford.)  As will be seen, in cross-examination the Claimant did not claim to have done anything about the matter during February – June 2001 but said merely that “it did cross his mind” to do something. This is a point which is of some significance generally, in my view. 
112.	In July 2001 Dr Pervez asked the Claimant to sign a change of supervision document. The Claimant refused to sign the document. He says in his witness statement, however,  that he did not at the time in fact refuse to accept the proposed supervisors, but simply expressed various concerns, which in retrospect were entirely justified. 
“Prof. Bridge would shortly thereafter claim that this amounted to a refusal to accept the proposed supervisors and set this out as an allegation of wrongdoing. An allegation which was subsequently formally pursued by the university. Seeking to foist supervisors upon a research student who were known to be ill-intentioned and expressly acting against the interests of the research student is to my mind a paradigm case of breach of contract in respect of the university’s contractual obligations toward me as a Ph.D.  research student.”
113.	The Claimant says that he,
“... took every effort to work together with Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford even after it had become plain they were acting in collaborating with Prof. Bridge. Until I was ‘excluded’ I did my best to find a suitable supervisor. I contacted a number of potential supervisors at other universities myself, whose details I passed to Prof. Alford. The university refused all such attempts and made no alternative proposals in respect of supervision. There may well have been other individuals within the university who might have been suited to supervise my research studies, but no efforts were undertaken to find a suitable replacement for Dr Peng.” 
114.	The Dispute and Subsequent ‘Exclusion.’ The Claimant said that by early summer of 2001,  
“it had become evident that all was not well and that I was ‘on the way out’.  While I cannot say when precisely the dispute began, I did notice by April and May 2001 that Dr Pervez had ceased to take me into his confidence and that Alan Nigrin was being particularly obstructive in the laboratory. Equipment would disappear, would fail to be returned or made inaccessible. And more importantly, in these various matters Dr Pervez would back the actions of Alan Nigrin, even on occasion drafting memoranda  that would provide Mr Nigrin with retrospective support. The importance of this was that I had scheduled the Summer of 2001 to carry out the experimental laboratory work that I needed for the research studies. Experimental work which I needed to complete in order to present it in my transfer report. Prof. Alford, Dr Pervez and Mr Nigrin were all well aware of this. As things stood I would be slightly behind in respect of submitting my transfer report, although there was no exact deadline. I was behind with the experimental work because of the additional teaching load I had had following Dr Peng’s unexpected departure. I had arranged with Dr Pervez that I would have the use of the laboratory well in advance (prior to Dr Peng’s departure) and in fact once the academic year ended I did in fact have exclusive use of the laboratory. The use of the laboratory was, however, increasingly frustrated by Alan Nigrin, and by June 2001 it had become clear that I would not be able to make any useful progress in the experimental work.” [Emphasis added.]
115.	As a result of the problems he faced in the laboratory he said that he then [i.e. June 2001] approached both Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford specifically to resolve the issue of a replacement for Dr Peng as supervisor. It was as a result of that (he says) that they set up a sequence of formal meetings between the ‘supervisory team’ and himself. (As will be seen, the Defendant’s case is that the initiative for such meetings came from Prof. Bridge.)   However, the Claimant said,
“These meetings turned out to be particularly counterproductive and frustrating on my part. Both Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford seemed to take as an assumption that my Ph.D.  was progressing poorly, and took to treating me as if I were a failing student who was refusing to do his ‘homework’ – in this case the transfer report. They took the view that I should focus on producing the transfer report and that they wished to see regular updates to that end.
“I did everything I could to satisfy Prof. Alford (who I had had no contact with prior to this period) to convince him that there was no difficulty in producing the transfer report. All the theoretical work was complete, indeed I already had a paper published on the topic. I had sent Prof. Alford a variety of material that would constitute the bulk of the transfer report, even at one point the entire table of contents of the proposed transfer report. I would explain repeatedly that the only thing blocking my progress in producing the report was the as yet uncompleted experimental work, which I strongly suspected was being purposefully obstructed. And it was precisely on the issue of the laboratory that no progress could be made, and that it was Alan Nigrin who was actively obstructing me.
“Nothing was done about Alan Nigrin’s obstructive and offensive behaviour, indeed they seemed to take great effort to find ways to excuse his behaviour, or even to find additional ways in which my access to the laboratory or the use of my equipment could be restricted. One such proposal was a kind of ‘separate but equal’ proposal, which in practice meant that I could work only in the evening after Mr Nigrin had gone home. As an example to illustrate the degree to this extended, Prof. Bryan Bridge would later raise as an allegation of wrongdoing that I would “come in between about 3.00 4.00 pm” and that “these hours severely limit the time available for interaction with your research supervisors.”, when in fact I was restricted to coming in at this time because I had been asked to restrict my interaction with Mr Nigrin.”
116.	The Claimant said he was particularly disappointed by one specific meeting between himself, Prof. Alford and Alan Nigrin. He had complained about missing equipment which Alan Nigrin had until then denied having any knowledge of. However, in the meeting Mr Nigrin was forced to admit that in fact he had taken the equipment to replace equipment the Claimant had allegedly damaged. In doing so he lost his composure and was rude and personally abusive. Despite this, Prof. Alford seemed to take the view that the Claimant was somehow at fault. This episode in particular persuaded him that Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez were not acting in good faith.
117.	He met Prof. Bryan Bridge on 23 July 2001,
“...ostensibly in respect of the Protheroe complaint. Prof. Bridge proceeded to set out that my tenure at SBU was as far as he was concerned over, but that if I dropped the Protheroe complaint that I could ‘salvage’ something of my Ph.D.  by leaving SBU with an M. Phil. . Otherwise I would leave with ‘nothing’ (a theme which would reappear in various settlement offers made subsequently by SBU). He appeared to have intimate knowledge of the supervisory meetings and he also made mention of information he had received from Ian Marshall, who he described as one of my supervisors. This reference to Ian Marshall and what subsequently transpired in the meeting (as set out in the subsequent complaint) convinced me that Prof. Bridge had in fact been orchestrating a determined effort against me. As a result I raised my concerns with Prof. Bridge in an email.” 
118.	In a subsequent meeting he said that he confronted Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez with the allegation that they had been conspiring to ‘get rid of’ him. He pointed to evidence of material “that should have remained confidential between supervisor and research student but which Prof. Bridge had obtained.” Nevertheless, “even in the face of overwhelming evidence, both strenuously denied doing so.” They insisted they were doing their best to supervise his Ph.D. research. 
“In retrospect I see this as direct dishonesty, particularly as Dr Pervez had just days prior to this contacted Ian Marshall by email on behalf of Bryan Bridge with the express request to provide material to ‘get rid of’ me….”
119.	Prof. Alford, he said, 
“ spent some considerable time during our meeting explaining that they had a duty to supervise my research studies irrespective of the circumstances and that it would be best to disregard the issues of the dispute, which he appeared to regard as originating from me (without saying so explicitly) and which I could at any point decide to leave behind. He proposed to ignore the dispute and to ‘focus on the research’, specifically the transfer report. I found this focus on the transfer report to the exclusion of all else unusual. I would repeatedly tell both Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez that there was little point to discussing the transfer report because the transfer report would require at least a rough draft of the experimental work, and the main problem was that Alan Nigrin was blocking all progress in the laboratory, something which both would persistently ignore. Despite this I sought to cooperate as much as possible with Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez.” 
120.	As to the transfer report, he said: 
“I had at this stage sent a variety of material that would be used to draw up the transfer report. I asked Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez to provide the detailed and relevant advice on the content I had provided; source material and research methods. Essentially a review of the work I had up until that point completed. Although it was plainly their duty as supervisors, they were extremely reluctant to agree to do this. While I had not agreed to any supervision, they were insisting that they were supervising my research studies, and I felt that a detailed review drawn up by them would help me decide to what capacity from an academic point of view they were suited to supervise the research I was working on. It would also be helpful for the school’s research degrees committee to decide the matter. In the end they agreed to do this, but rather than a detailed review they simply drafted a 1 or 2 p. summary of my research work.” 
121.	Dr Pervez’s review, the Claimant said, 
“was of a particularly low standard, confirming various rumours about his academic background. One does not need to have expertise in the specific subject area to see that Dr Pervez was unsuited to act as an academic supervisor at Ph.D. level. His submission [sic] was littered with a variety of grammatical errors and even basic spelling mistakes. It was a decidedly poor review, of a standard beneath that expected even of an undergraduate student. It showed he was plainly unsuited to act as the principal supervisor of a highly specialized and complex field of research. This persuaded me that it would be best to bring in external supervision.” 
122.	The Claimant said that Prof. Alford did not in principle appear to be opposed to external supervision, but in practice he would do nothing about it. This was plainly because Prof. Bridge was openly hostile to any suggestion of external supervision but Prof. Alford refused to acknowledge this.  
123.	In early September 2001 Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford terminated the supervisory meetings. The Claimant said that he
“...felt that this was plainly because they had earlier been asked to by Prof. Bridge to gather evidence to support his various allegations and that at this stage they had either gathered sufficient evidence or were making insufficient progress to that end.”
Cross-examination of the Claimant 
124.	The Claimant was cross-examined by Mr Hamilton, counsel for the defendants.  He agreed that the first piece of litigation in which he had engaged was before the employment tribunal where he had given evidence himself and then cross-examined Prof. Bridge for two days. He disagreed that the dispute was essentially over an issue of whether the employment had ended or not, with the defendants saying his employment had ended and he saying it was continuing. He said the dispute revolved around when his employment had terminated.
125.	Asked about documents at trial bundle D745 trial bundle C 243 he denied that his claim he had not been dismissed was a lie by saying there was a dispute which was continuing.
126.	He agreed that he had covertly recorded meetings.  “When you say it was covertly -- at one stage I brought a recording device along and some of the supervisors objected. Q:  you recorded all meetings and have been selective in those you have transcribed-- you have held back those that don't suit you haven't you? For example the final meeting on 26 September? A:  I don't accept that meeting happened. Q:  Look at [the reference to it on] p. 576? A:  There may be confusion about whether it was on that date. Where are the notes? If it took place, that would be notes. Q:  you were very rude at that meeting, weren't you, and have recorded it but have not disclosed it? A:  there is no recording because the meeting did not happen.
127.	Q:  you have made up the allegation about grade fixing which was the subject of the judicial review case and also “the plot” because you humiliated Dr Protheroe. A:  possibly I did make an allegation which was too strong and in haste about the grade-fixing but I genuinely believed it.
128.	Q:  who do you say were members of your supervisory team? A:  my director of studies was Dr Peng; Dr Pervez; Prof. Alford. Only Prof. Alford had the requisite qualifications as a supervisor. Q:  you say you had no suspicion after Dr Peng left in January 2001 [i.e. of any conspiracy at that stage against him] why did you not then approach Dr Pervez or Prof. Alford to identify who was your director of studies? A:  it did cross my mind, but I was also warned by Dr Peng that there were problems at the University -- Dr Peng had been forced out by Dr Pervez -- so I was wary. [Emphasis added.]
Q:  Trial bundle D618 -- that shows that you knew exactly who your supervisors were? A:  No. 
[Judge: look at your witness statement at p. 91 paragraph 8 – 
“Prof. Alford explained that Dr. Peng had himself only a recently completed his Ph.D.  and did not have sufficient experience supervising Ph.D.  students and that as Dr. Pervez’ strengths lay in administration he was also not qualified to supervise Ph.D.  students and as a result he (Prof. Alford) would be acting as a ‘backup’ supervisor.”
A: I was confused.] 
Q:  But D618 is an interview in October 2001, and your witness statement was made in 2009? A:  [after a long introduction] it was not clear in my mind at the time they had different functions. There was some confusion. Q:  but look at D642 where you say “I do not at present have a supervisor” is that also confusion? A:  in retrospect I would say “I do not have a first supervisor. [i.e. Director of studies]”
129.	Q:  You say Dr Pervez was not involved in your supervision at all between January and May 2001? A:  Yes. Q:  In May 2001 Prof. Alford took over as your supervisor? A:  Yes, up to the point when he said he wasn't, and that Dr Pervez was. [Judge:] How often had you attended on Dr Peng for supervisions? A:  Not that often -- perhaps once a month. [Judge:] After he left who were you attending upon for supervisions? A: There was a crisis at the school so I was very busy teaching. I thought it would be sorted out amicably. I had meetings with Dr Pervez but they were all employment-related.
130.	Q:  On 8 August 2001, which was the next meeting, you refused to work with Perry Xaoi? A:  I didn't want him involved in my supervision because I suspected he was involved in the plot to get rid of me. Prof.  Bridge  said “drop the complaint or I'll get rid of you” I made it clear I was not going to drop the complaint and he then suggested that Perry was involved. Q:  You didn't want Dr Xiao because you knew he'd be able to give an accurate assessment of your work ... A:  Quite the contrary.
131.	Q:  Was it reasonable for Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez to try to get you deliver your transfer report? A:  No, because the university's own guidance makes it clear that they should not ask that in those circumstances. 
132.	[In answer to further questions from the court] I did think that Prof. Alford was acting as director of studies, but the research involved extensive empirical work in progress which had not been completed and therefore there was no transfer report. It was precisely this empirical work which was being blocked. [Counsel:] You ignored Dr Pervez  when he tried to get a progress report in February 2001 A:  There is no evidence of that. Q:  Look at E308, you were being rude? A:  Only slightly rude. But he made comments as well:  see 308.
133.	Q:  if, after Dr Peng left, Dr Pervez had asked you to provide him with an updated report that would have been reasonable, would it not? A:  I think it would have been reasonable for anyone such as Prof. Alford. And so I agree yes. I agree that I did say that the transfer report was trivial because most of the theoretical work had been done and the paper had been published. Q:  So you could have produced a transfer report? A: The point was empirical work needed to be completed. [Emphasis added.]
134.	“Q:  In May 2001 do you say [the lab technicians] were actually interfering with your work? A: more or less right. Q: So between September 2000 and May 2001 you were working consistently on your research? A: During academic semesters the laboratory was not available for my research. I’d be doing academic work. 
135.	“Q:  So apart from administrative work you are not making any progress? A:  You're not an academic. There are two parts to academic work the theoretical and the empirical. I would do the theoretical but could not do the empirical. I was making the progress that be expected of me despite my teaching commitments. [Judge:] Were the labs not available to you during term time after hours for students? A:  They would be, but it was laborious swapping the hard drives ... that took too long.
136.	Q[counsel]: Do you agree that in May 2001 Prof. Alford requested a short outline of your work? A:  Yes: see trial bundle volume C97 [a 2 ½ p. table of contents was sent to Prof. Alford by the Claimant by email on 22 May.]. Q:  in June you notified Prof. Alford that you might not be able to get the work done: trial bundle volume C102? A:  Yes.  Q:  is this the first time you thought that there were problems which might prevent the completion of your thesis? A:  Yes I agree that this was the first time I thought there were problems which might prevent completion but there had been problems beforehand.
137.	The Claimant was asked to look at C114, his 2-page e-mail of 21 June 2001 to Prof. Alford. This begins as follows:
 
“On the meeting of the 19th June 2001 and of the 21.5.01  we went over some of the requirements that I need in order to complete my Ph.D. .  On both occasions I attempted to be reasonably precise on exactly what those requirements were.  However, I feel that (in going over the minutes) the nature of the comments on the requirements do not reflect what I had meant.  I would like here to make clear what those requirements are.....[there follows a long passage in reference to the formation of an elaborate research group. The e-mail continues:--] ‘ the only area that is problem-free is the technical; there are no problems with equipment.  The Internet is my own design and in part specifically designed to meet my research needs.  I made an agreement ... to receive old defective computers from the LRC, which may be used by myself or project students as the need arises.  I have managed to assemble all of the requirements necessary for the successful completion of my Ph.D. practically single-handed.’ [Emphasis added.]

138.	Q. What do you say about the words ‘no problems with equipment’? A: I had managed to cobble together this network and if the pieces did not disappear or get locked up there would be no problems.
139.	Q:  Trial bundle volume C125 isn't there a dramatic change within 24 hours from the previous e-mail at trial bundle volume C114 -- 
“On reviewing the minutes of the meeting of the 19th June 2001 I feel that there are irreconcilable differences between myself, my supervisor and the director of my group.  As for the following reasons: -- decisions were made unilaterally; -- decisions were made without regard to available resources or issues regarding practical implementation .... “ 
what do you say about that? A:  This is Nigrin. It was probably facilitated [sic] by Nigrin removing a hard disk or locking the laboratory, for example. [Judge:] Then why did you not say so? A:  Because I did not want to say about Nigrin being rude and so on at this point.
140.	[Mr Hamilton]: At trial bundle volume C142 Prof. Alford suggested a meeting? A:  Yes. Q:  at trial bundle volume C144 the EPSRC said that the first way to resolve the problem with supervisors was by negotiation at SBU? A:  Yes -- well not exactly – [this was followed by a long recapitulation of what had happened] that was something they did not tell me. They should have told me that.
141.	Q:  Prof. Imhoff was the first point of call for graduate students with problems? A:  I did not know that. [Judge]: was he regarded as a kind of moral tutor? A:  Prof. Imhoff was, but that was not explained at the time.
142.	[Mr Hamilton]:  On 27 June 2001 (see trial bundle C169) did you take notes at the time? A:  No this is a recording. It is a verbatim transcript. Q:  why did you think it was necessary to make a recording? A:  because I was increasingly frustrated because of the laboratory and Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez had agreed things and nothing happened therefore they would say that it had been said differently at a meeting. Q:  do you agree that you told Prof. Alford you had completed most of the requirements for the Ph.D.  in the four months required for experiments? A:  [after a long recapitulation] that is accurate. 
143.	Q:  look at trial bundle C 171 – the Claimant’s minutes of the meeting of 27 June 2001 “this issue revolves around effective management.  I do not have any personal problems with Alan Nigrin, in fact he is pretty much the person I had a real contact with ... I might even call him a friend.  If there are not work-related issues in dispute we are generally quite good terms.”  You had no personal problems with Mr Nigrin and said you might even call him as a friend? A:  yes.
144.	[Judge]: look at trial bundle volume C p. 169 [beginning of meeting 27 June], why do you continue recording when Prof. Alford objected to your doing so? A:  I thought it was my right to do so. It was dishonest of Prof. Alford not to allow me to do so.  [Judge:] did you not think it was dishonest of you to continue to record covertly when Prof. Alford had objected to your openly recording? A:  no.
145.	[Mr Hamilton]:  do you agree that the trial bundle volume C184 – transcript of meeting of 13 July 2001 reads as follows – [NA = Prof. Alford; TB = the Claimant] “NA: ... lets just concentrate on ...  I just want to pin you down on how we are going to complete this Ph.D. . TB: I've tried to say what I need to complete the Ph.D. . Very simple things, but managerial things. ... NA: I don't mind if its troublesome. Lots of things are troublesome. But,... if you could come to me and say 'look, these are the 3 things that I need done, to get sorted out', fine. But I get 20 different emails from you which are each a p. or 2 long and its very difficult to figure out what you want. TB: I've sat here in meetings with you and Anjum and I've said exactly... NA: We have gone around and around in circles. TB: No! I set out exactly what I want ... what I need. And you have said 'no, impossible, not even going to listen to that' [NA: Well,] ... very abrupt and dismissive.  NA: Why don't you then ... just in a short email to me explain what you want and what you need. Just please Thomas, just so that we know where you are coming from...”   Prof. Alford was pleading with you to tell him what you wanted? A. Yes. But we were at loggerheads about Alan Nigrim. 
146.	Q: trial bundle volume C247 –Prof. Bridge’s memorandum of 27 July -  do you accept you agree you would meet once a week with your supervisory team? A: I'm surprised you even ask. The answer is no.
147.	Q:  trial bundle in C 257 there is an e-mail 30 July 2001 from Dr Pervez to you “The research supervisory team is calling a meeting to assess your M. Phil.  transfer progress. The meeting will be held on Wed 1 August 2001, at 10:00 am in Prof. Alford's office. Please bring along the following: 1. Your preparation material for the M. Phil.  Transfer 2. A list of equipment that you may require to complete your measurements. 3. A plan for the frequency of usage of the proposed equipment”?  A:  yes there are further agenda items on the following page. Q:  your reply is at trial bundle volume C331 what do you say? A:  I felt it was inappropriate for them to “assess” and require me to bring my work along. Q: do you agree you did not bring the work along? A: I did bring a list of equipment but the first and third requests I did refuse.
148.	Q:  On 16 August 2001 there was a meeting with Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez – your transcript is at trial bundle D510 to 515:
“AP [Dr Pervez]: Can I suggest something.... The University regulations very clearly states that a Ph.D.  student at this stage need not be asking supervisor to hold this kind of advice. Ph.D.  student can write his transfer report and submit under that, it is very clearly written. So I see no reason why we should be holding Thomas' hand at this stage after 2 years. I am really feeling, you know, really upset. TB: It is not our total responsibility that we should be holding any persons hand after 2 years. TB:  He should be capable of writing his transfer and letting you have a look, letting me have a look, and whoever else and submit it if he feels that way.   NA[ Prof. Alford]: Yeah. Ok. That would save you ... he can take on board the comments or not. And that is true.  AP: Exactly. It does not matter. It doesn't matter whatsoever. Because this is the regulation. We are doing this ... I don't know what we are doing. The point is ...  TB: You asked ... you asked for this yourself. This is why we are here. You asked to go over this. AP: You write a transfer report, a complete transfer report, and present it to us. And we will comment. I mean this is baby stuff, over here. But, who is serious. After 2 years? TB: You asked ... this is what you asked to go through.”   
Q. What do you say about that? A:  I'm giving them all the material and they won't accept it so I'm getting frustrated. It's up to them to ask for progress reports. 
Q:  Where is the evidence of empirical work being done? A:  [there was a long delay while the witness hunted through the bundles] trial bundle E p, 284 [A paper entitled “IPVN: A Network Protocol with QOS in mind” by Thomas Bangert of SBU [no longer giving his SBU email address, but a hotmail address] and Hermann De Meer of University College, London] Q:  when was this written? A:  2002. Q:  So it was written after you left [November 2001]? A:  Just before or just after. I approached University College London. The work is mine.”
That concluded the Claimant’s evidence

Prof Marshall
149.	Prof Marshall is now Professor of Distributed Systems at the University of Kent, a position he has held since 1 January 2004, within the Computer Science Department of that University.  His role includes research and  teaching. His personal interest focuses on the use of “nature-inspired AI” (Artificial Intelligence) techniques in networks of “smart sensors” using ad hoc wireless data networking. His teaching is at both undergraduate and post-graduate levels and covers ubiquitous computing, wireless networking and systems engineering.
150.	The defendants had not sought to adduce the evidence of Prof. Marshall as part of their case. The Claimant said that he wished to call Prof. Marshall to give evidence, if necessary by the issue of a witness summons to ensure his attendance.  When it was explained that in those circumstances the Claimant would not be able to cross-examine Prof. Marshall, the Claimant agreed to his statement being read as agreed evidence, and I agreed to permit the Claimant to make appropriate comments if it conflicted with other evidence. 
151.	Until 1 January 2004, Prof. Marshall was employed by a division of BT plc, as a research group leader. As part of his duties, under arrangements made between SBU and BT he also acted as a visiting professor to the SBU in the Electrical Engineering Department working mainly with the Telecommunications Group. He initially acted as an external advisor to the SBU and assisted them in the development of teaching and research agendas which would be of interest to industry and in particular, to BT. This commercial relationship benefited both parties because (1) it enabled the SBU to focus on issues of industry interest to enable the best chance of (a) funding for research and of (b) graduates finding employment in the industry; and (2) BT gained the benefit of research and qualified graduates in areas of interest to it.
152.	 Prof. Marshall’s relationship with SBU had begun in about 1997, when he started by assisting them to design courses and research grant proposals. He worked with Dr Anjum (Jim) Pervez from SBU. SBU made him a visiting professor to the Telecoms Group in the Engineering Department in early 2000, a role which led him to visit the university about 5 times a year.
153.	As Visiting Professor, Prof. Marshall was asked by Dr Pervez to meet with Ph.D.  students at the university to discuss their Ph.D.  thesis topics and to give them some guidance on these topics.  In late 1999, he met the Claimant to discuss his Ph.D.  project. He was not Mr Bangert's supervisor and did not regard himself as such: Dr Peng was.  That was his first meeting with Mr Bangert. The Claimant’s proposed Ph.D. thesis dealt with theories relating to Artificial Intelligence, and Prof. Marshall formed the initial impression that he put his views forward “rather aggressively” but put this down  to enthusiasm  for his topic of research and perhaps an over-willingness to “defend his corner” from critical analysis. Prof. Marshall considered that he would probably need “extra guidance and focus” but this was something that could be achieved if he was willing to learn from his supervisors and others.
154.	  After that first meeting, Prof. Marshall said, Mr Bangert “initiated a series of emails with me.” Initially the discussion seemed constructive (it dealt largely with issues relating to Artificial Intelligence and computational learning.) Many of these emails have been deleted and permanently destroyed, but some evidence of the Departmenth of the commentary Prof. Marshall gave upon the Claimant’s first ideas for his thesis may be judged from extracts from an email on or about the 8 February 2000.  It must, of course, be remembered that the eventual topic of the thesis was quite different.  However, there is in this email some evidence of the degree of Departmenth of the exchanges which were being made early in 2000, and of their tone.
155.	This email is in fact (I think) the earliest example of an exchange between Prof. Marshall and the Claimant to be found in the papers or in the digital version of documents supplied to the court on DVD. It is both lengthy (over 2,000 words in a tersely-phrased document,) and complex in its technical terminology.  It is not easy to follow, mainly as it is written in answer to points raised by the Claimant in an email which apparently no longer exists. However, in view of the Claimant’s contentions about Prof. Marshall, I nevertheless reproduce below some much- abbreviated but nevertheless lengthy passages from it.  This is in order to consider inter alia, the extent to which it appears to be a tutor-student dialogue, even though it may be on a different topic from that finally settled upon by the Claimant for his Ph D.  Though far from readily-comprehensible to the layman, the document has a didactic tone; it appears to consist of patient responses to matters raised by the Claimant.  It has unmistakable references to the need to  concentrate on scholarly method -- the importance of measuring and of evaluating benefit, for example -- and its very level of detail is striking.  Then there is the time at which it was written: fewer than six months after the Claimant began his research studentship.  It was not, it seems to me, an email which its recipient could ignore.  It demanded effort for a response. 
156.	The subject under discussion in the email is Back to Learning – and the correspondence is evidently dealing with ‘learning’ in connection with “AI” - Artificial Intelligence.  (An asterisk represents the symbol used in the original email apparently to denote a response to each discrete topic raised in the Claimant’s email, which I have not traced.)
* 'No learning algorithm that can guarantee a win in checkers' - I don't really understand your point here.  This was your point not mine. You attempted to claim that Samuel’s program must have a poor learning algorithm since it could be beaten. ..... On what basis do you make this claim? what have you measured? how can you make any decisions without an evaluation of benefit? It is possible (but you don't know for sure!) that the evaluation is not strongly based on lookahead, but given Grandmaster training in Russia is based on training players to do rapid lookahead with strong pruning, I would not be confident.... 
*So in what way is changing weights not about changing the
system?   N.B. you are right out on a limb here - the learning community do not agree with the views you are expressing. I don't agree with your point that you can more successfully predict the stock market using statistics.....
 *Oh yes it does ... [in answer, evidently, to some matter challenged by the Claimant]   short term the variations are purely stochastic [random] - the “art” is in recognising deterministic movements this is precisely why everyone uses Black-Scholes - it gives them an edge.  If your view was correct it would not be useful....  
* Careful - I said no such thing. In fact the 'stock market' is nothing more than a kind of zero sum game (a continuous game) played collectively by several million active skilled learning machines. The rules of the game are sufficiently simple to be discounted. .....Because the players are learning machines they constantly look for patterns, develop algorithms, theories etc. Anything to get an edge in predicting future states of the 'market'. ….Given equal knowledge, no player has an advantage over the other; hence prediction will be no better than random (which does not mean as is commonly assumed that the inverse is true).  
* However I do not agree that your attempted redefinition of
learning is useful or helpful.  ..... You have not yet shown me any problem that your proposal clarifies.  Indeed you have not described a problem, that is not already addressed just as well with simple learning if one is restricted to feasible computing (reality).  As a supervisor [emphasis added] I would recommend you focus on something that enables real scientific progress.  For example you could attempt to build a learning machine for some feasible problem, and demonstrate that it works better than alternatives if it is allowed to alter its algorithm as well as its weights. ..... Robot perception is another area where there are lots of problems you could realistically attempt (but find a supervisor in a robotics group) etc (i.e. there are many more.)  
Ian”
129.	A further email, dated 16 February 2000,  apparently in response to the Claimant’s reply,  has a rather brisker tone – it concludes with the words:
“As for redefinition [of ‘learning’] - despite your denial you are attempting a redefinition - what other explanation is possible for the fact that you dismiss a lot of things widely accepted as learning (remember Hebbs was a psychologist, and so was Skinner) as not being learning.  You have in no way justified this redefinition, nor have you given any indication of what you want to do other than attempt to justify your redefinition by reference to a couple of infeasible problems.   If you have something more substantive I recommend you write it down so I can see it.  In particular if there is a definition of what one might call “Bangert learning” you should state it (preferably accurately) together with any statements required to make it unambiguous.  Actually on the evidence available to me I am not confident that “Bangert learning” is novel - on the evidence of these mails there are some clear lacunae in your background reading, but I cannot advise properly unless you tell me what it is (rather than what it is not). 
“Assuming that it is novel (my working hypothesis so far), you still need (to obtain your Ph.D.) to focus on an application that can be built and demonstrated within three years rather than the infeasible problems you have discussed so far.   Only AFTER you have demonstrated the universality of “Bangert learning” (a research programme at least 10 years long I suspect) will you be able to claim that other things are not learning without your papers being immediately rejected (remember the referees will be from the current machine learning community.)
“Ian.”
130.	 By June 2000, Prof. Marshall said in his statement, he reached the conclusion that the type of research Mr Bangert was then proposing to do in his Ph.D.  studies had either (a) already been undertaken before or (b) was impossible. 
“Although Mr Bangert did not appear to accept what I was trying to tell him about this, I note that subsequently his thesis topic changed. While initially he was looking at a learning algorithm, his later investigations began looking at source routing as a performance enhancement in data networks.”
131.	Prof. Marshall went on to say in his statement that as their email correspondence continued, he became increasingly alarmed by Mr Bangert's over-sensitivity and “over-reliance on single sources to support his views.” Eventually, said Prof. Marshall, “Mr Bangert's comments in his emails between March and June 2000 became increasingly insulting and degenerated into personal attacks.” Prof. Marshall did not retain a copy of these later emails, as he deleted them when he terminated the correspondence with Mr Bangert, but a passage from an email from Mr Bangert dated 13 September 2000 was selected by Prof. Marshall as being “indicative of the attitude he took when expressing his views to me.”
“I [the Claimant wrote] haven't read the v.90 standard, but I've read enough about it to know what you [Prof. Marshall] said is complete rubbish. I was surprised to hear you present your view so strongly on a subject that is almost common knowledge, having been repeated in the popular press ad-nauseum [sic.] I didn't want to humiliate you in front of M. Sc.  students and/or people who think in terms of 'humiliation'. I understand that you don't necessarily have to know anything about v.90 even though you work at BT. Others don't necessarily take this view and they might judge you based on this type of trivia. To repay my tact, I would appreciate if you would correct your error next Friday....”
132.	   Prof. Marshall’s response was notably restrained.  He explained in his statement that he could only assume that Mr Bangert's comments had either been designed to provoke some sort of response, or that he genuinely had no understanding of the appropriate manner in which to undertake calm and dispassionate scientific correspondence. However, 
“It soon became apparent to me after a string of similar emails that Mr Bangert was unable or unwilling to listen to my comments that were designed to assist him or to accept that his focus and views may not be correct. As Mr Bangert did not want to listen to criticism of his views, I felt that I could not contribute anything meaningful or constructive to our correspondence. I had to ask the SBU to get Mr Bangert to stop contacting me in the later part of 2000, as I wanted nothing further to do with his correspondence.”
133.	Prof. Marshall said that he heard that at one point (in Autumn 2000, it seems) the Claimant presented a paper at the “PGnet” post-graduates’ Conference in Liverpool. He was told by one of the conference organisers who attended the conference that the manner in which Mr Bangert presented the paper “was not popular” and that this was “another rubbish paper from SBU”. It was implied that his manner and the way in which he responded to questions and comments did not do credit to SBU.
134.	The PGnet conference is a forum for individuals at an early stage in their doctoral studies to present their work and meet peers. Almost all papers are accepted since the primary objective is for the students to learn by interacting with a wider community than can be offered by their home institution. Prof. Marshall said,
“[a]cceptance is partly a metric of the quality of the work or presentation, but is primarily a recognition that with appropriate guidance the work has the potential to develop into something useful. It is quite common for students to overstate their claims (as Mr Bangert did in the view of his referees) but most unusual for students to demonstrate they are not willing to listen to expert advice. Students at the conference are expected to respond constructively to criticism since it is intended to help them develop.
“Unfortunately, the fact that Mr Bangert chose to submit the paper without his supervisor having seen it (a step which is at odds with normal practice and professional courtesy), and his attitude to those attending the conference, annoyed several people who made negative comments regarding SBU. I recall mentioning this to Dr Pervez who suggested that I take the opportunity to talk again to the Ph.D.  students as this would give me the opportunity again to try and explain to Mr Bangert why source routing was not the solution to every problem in this field of study. I think therefore that my second meeting with Mr Bangert occurred after the PGNet Conference.”
135.	This second meeting also occurred at the SBU. Prof. Marshall believed that Dr Peng, Mr Bangert's supervisor, was also present. One topic discussed was “source routing.”
“Source routing is a process by which a person inputs data to a network and specifies all the devices it has to go through to get from point A to point B. There are a number of problems with the process and it has been examined in some Departmenth by other researchers. I tried to explain to Mr Bangert some of these problems and the fact that it is arguably not better than any other process for the transmission of data. Unfortunately Mr Bangert was adamant that source routing was the solution to all problems and he showed me a sales document which he said supported his view entirely. It appeared after we had conversed for a period that it was futile to try and convince Mr Bangert that his views may be misconceived and so I tried to move on to discuss another student's work. I recall that Mr Bangert seemed unwilling to let the discussion end and he tried to continue engaging me again as I discussed another student's work.”
136.	Following this second meeting Prof. Marshall  formed the clear view that,
“Mr Bangert's attitude to supervisory input (as displayed in his interaction with me) was a barrier to the learning process in his Ph.D.  studies. I believe that I probably remarked to Dr Pervez in the Autumn of 2000, words to the effect that I did not want anything to do with him and if he treated other people with the same attitude with which he had treated me then SBU were better off getting rid of him, since without effective supervisory input he would not be able to complete a satisfactory Ph.D.  accepted by an external examiner, and this would reflect badly on SBU. I suggested to Dr Pervez that SBU should get Mr Bangert to complete a transfer thesis, which is a normal requirement for a Ph.D.  to show that a student has identified an appropriate topic of study for their Ph.D. . Failure to submit a transfer thesis will normally result in the student not being allowed to progress to a full Ph.D.  and therefore in the termination of their studies. I did not believe that Mr Bangert would be able to complete a satisfactory transfer thesis.” [Emphasis added.]
137.	Effectively, that was the last thing which Prof. Marshall knew about the Claimant’s research studies and the last contact he had with SBU in respect of the Claimant until, on 18 July 2001, he received an email from Dr Pervez informing him (inter alia) that since Dr Peng had left at the end of the year 2000, he, Dr Pervez had tried on several occasions to have a meaningful discussion with the Claimant regarding his work, but in vain.  The email continued:  
“It has been impossible for me to get any sense out of him. I also mentioned to Bryan [Professor Bridge] that you tried your best in the beginning to communicate with him and to advise him on his Ph.D.  work but the Claimant never listened to your advice and eventually you had to give up. Bryan suggested that it would be very useful to have a statement from you expressing your views of his behaviour and your work experiences with The Claimant....”. 
138.	On or about 19 July 2001, Prof. Marshall says that he responded to Dr Pervez, 
“... providing him with my personal and professional opinion as to Mr Bangert's abilities as a student as I had found him. [He wrote:] ‘Hopefully the words below regarding the Claimant will help you -- I believe he is a bad scientist but not a bad person. However I think the stress of attempting to do something he is not good at (or refusing to recognise his weakness) has made him somewhat unstable and sensitive. I have not quoted examples of the kind of disparaging remarks he has made (I am sure you have plenty) as I wanted to try and present a balanced objective external view. My idea is that this may help you avoid any accusations of subjective bias.’ 
139.	Prof. Marshall said that his comments were his own personal views and comments on the Claimant’s behaviour as he had found it in the limited dealings which he had had with Mr Bangert, based on face to face meetings, the chain of email correspondence, and the comments made to him regarding Mr Bangert's performance at the PGNet Conference. He sent them “on the understanding that they coincided with the view that had already been formed internally at SBU regarding Mr Bangert's behaviour.”
140.	On 14 November 2001 he received an email from Dr Pervez advising that Mr Bangert had been excluded from SBU.
The Claimant’s assertions regarding Prof. Marshall
141.	I have considered Mr Bangert’s submissions upon Prof. Marshall’s evidence, and I have considered whether the evidence in any way supports the suggestion he makes that Prof. Marshall lobbied the Defendants to “get rid” of the Claimant. 
142.	The Claimant chose to have the statement of Prof. Marshall admitted as agreed evidence. The defendant submits that having done this the Claimant cannot impeach the evidence contained in that statement. I am prepared to accept that the Claimant is entitled to make submissions which cast doubt upon that evidence when it is compared with other evidence. 
143.	The Claimant says Professor Marshall had nothing to do with his research and therefore Professor Marshall’s criticisms are untrue and made in bad faith.
144.	It is clear from the evidence that Professor Marshall had a role within SBU and in its relations with the Claimant, which was indeed to advise and offer guidance to the Claimant.  He did that, as the material set out above shows, in respect of “AI” matters via email correspondence during the year 2000.
145.	After a meeting with the Claimant as a result of concerns having been raised about the quality of the paper the Claimant presented to the Post Graduate Net Conference in Liverpool and his general approach to his research Prof. Marshall said that he had “formed the clear view in my mind that Mr. Bangert’s attitude to supervisory input (as displayed in his interaction with me) was a barrier to the learning process in his Ph.D. studies.”  (This was a sentiment which Professor Alford expressly endorsed in his oral evidence.)

146.	Professor Marshall accepted that: “I believe I probably remarked to Dr. Pervez in the Autumn of 2000, words to the effect that I did not want anything to do with him, and if he treated other people with the same attitude with which he had treated me then SBU were better off getting rid of him, since without effective supervisory input, he would not be able to complete a satisfactory Ph.D. accepted by an external examiner.” It seems to me that that was a view which, in the light of his experience of the Claimant, he was perfectly entitled to hold and to express.  As a result of Professor Marshall’s concerns about the Claimant’s attitude, he recommended the Defendant University should require the Claimant to submit a transfer thesis, as he doubted the Claimant would be able to do this. In my judgment, in the circumstances, that that was a perfectly proper recommendation for him to have made.
 
147.	In July 2001, Professor Marshall was requested by Dr. Pervez to provide “your views about his behaviour and your work experiences with Thomas”. He provided his views on the Claimant in the email, dated 19th July 2001. This concluded that: “I believe he is a bad scientist not a bad person. However I think the stress of attempting to do something he is not good at (or refusing to recognise his weakness) has made him somewhat unstable and sensitive”.

148.	The account given by Professor Marshall, the Defendant submits, is coherent, plausible and consistent with the account given by others involved with Mr. Bangert.  It is also consistent with the patient and professional attitude Prof. Marshall displayed toward the Claimant in the emails on AI from which I have read short passages.  On the other hand, the Defendant submits, the Claimant’s account does not make sense. If, as he claims, he had minimal contact with Professor Marshall and Professor Marshall had nothing to do with his research, why should Prof. Marshall take so partisan a view against him?  Hardly, it is submitted, because of a churlishly-phrased or arrogant email.  Casting around for a possible motive, Mr Hamilton said that the Claimant has suggested the “competitor” angle:  Professor Marshall may have been motivated by a concern that the Claimant’s research may have posed a threat to BT “as a competitor.” The Claimant did indeed make that assertion. I have considered whether there could be any substance in it. There was no evidence whatever to support the suggestion, which I regard as fanciful at best. 
149.	The Claimant relies on Professor Marshall’s admission that he probably said to Dr. Pervez in the Autumn of 2000 words to the effect that he did not want anything further to do with Mr Bangert, and if he treated other people with the same attitude with which he had treated Prof. Marshall then SBU were better off getting rid of him, since without effective supervisory input, he would not be able to complete a satisfactory Ph.D. accepted by an external examiner.   The Claimant submits that this is evidence that there is likely to have been of a campaign of lobbying against him. On any objective view, this is not what this evidence shows.  It shows a wish to have nothing further to do with him. I reject the suggestion that Prof. Marshall lobbied against the Claimant,  or that he was party to any campaign against him. 
Dr Anjum (“Jim”) Pervez
150.	 No witness statement from Dr Peng was submitted by either side.  Accordingly, it is convenient to deal next with the evidence of Dr Pervez, whose personal interaction with the Claimant dates back to the period just before he actually embarked on the Ph D. course.
151.	Dr Pervez has been a member of staff at SBU since 1986.  His current job title is Principal Lecturer. He has a BSc in Electronic Communications; an M. Sc.  in Optical Signal Design; and a Ph.D.  in Optical Digital Multiplexing. He is a Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology. 
152.	He first remembers personal dealings with the Claimant when SBU were looking for candidates to put forward for the EPSRC award.  Dr Peng suggested the Claimant and two others as possible candidates. The Claimant met the academic criteria for an award and in the absence of any other candidates, it was allocated to him. He then discontinued his M. Sc. course and commenced an M. Phil. with a view to completing a Ph.D. . 
153.	All such students are initially registered as M. Phil. students. At about 15-18 months (roughly the half-way point for a normal Ph.D. ) they are expected to produce a dissertation called a Transfer Report. This shows the progress they have made and it goes before the Research Committee. On the basis of the Report, the Committee decides whether the student can transfer to Ph.D.  level. If the Transfer Report is not approved the student remains at M. Phil.  level and has to re-submit his report.  
154.	The Claimant’s supervisory team for his Ph.D.  consisted of Dr. Peng, Dr Pervez, and Professor Alford. Ian Marshall of British Telecom was an external collaborator: see C1 ff.
155.	Although named as second supervisor, Dr Pervez said that he initially played very little or no part in the Claimant’s work. Professor Alford was named third supervisor because he had extensive experience in supervising Ph.D.  students, additionally he was the member of staff in the Department responsible for research. He also had a lot of dealings with EPSRC.
156.	Dr Pervez was originally told by Dr. Peng that the Claimant’s research would be in the area of ATM technology. However, at some point the project title was changed to Internet Protocol Technology. Dr Pervez was not aware of how this happened but the Claimant subsequently told him that he wanted to change and Dr. Peng agreed. Dr. Peng had told Dr Pervez that the Claimant’s research would take the form of a simulation project. This means it would be demonstrated theoretically on a computer rather than by practical work. The main reason for this was that SBU did not have the resources for major practical research. There was not even a computer network (i.e. a number of computers linked together by an intranet), on which the practical work could be carried out. There was no research budget which could have permitted further equipment to be acquired for this purpose.
157.	The Claimant was very keen to be able to test his theories on a computer network. In order to try to help and accommodate him, Dr. Peng and Dr Pervez agreed that although there was no research budget for it, the University would pay for some additional computers from the teaching budget. It was agreed that the Claimant and the laboratory technicians would then build a small network in the teaching laboratory. Alan Nigrin was the chief technician in the laboratory. The network, once set up, was to be used both for the Claimant’s research and for teaching. It was made clear to the Claimant that using the computers for teaching must have priority at all times. He appeared to Dr Pervez to understand this and raised no objections. 
158.	The first inkling of any of the trouble which was to follow appears to have manifested itself as a result of this arrangement.  Dr Pervez puts it as follows:
“Initially, things seemed to go well. Having consulted with Alan Nigrin, Thomas produced a list of the equipment he needed. Unfortunately problems arose between them. I believe it was at this stage they both started complaining about each other. One of Alan’s complaints was that Thomas was effectively not collaborating and not allowing him to participate in building the Network. Thomas certainly ended up building the Network himself. It subsequently became clear to me that Thomas considered Alan to be his assistant and felt Alan should follow his instructions. This was not the case as he had no authority over Alan.”
159.	Dr Pervez said that he received an email from the Claimant dated 29 September 2000, notifying him the Network was operational. As Alan Nigrin  had not taken part in building the Network, the Claimant was the only person who knew how it worked. Dr Pervez asked him to give a talk so that he could explain to the academics and technicians who used the laboratory how to use the Network. He was also asked to produce a written operating manual or guide for this meeting.   The meeting took place on 23rd October 2000. It was not a success. Although the Claimant did give a talk, it was not useful. He did not tell people how the Network worked and he produced nothing in writing.  
160.	There were then further problems.  Alan Nigrin complained about the Claimant’s behaviour and said he continued to be unwilling to share information about the Network, preferring people to have to come to him and ask him what to do. The Claimant in turn complained about Alan Nigrin’s attitude saying he was not supporting him in his work.   
161.	The Claimant was employed to teach the Introduction to Software Course to part time students. Dr Pervez subsequently became aware from emails copied to him by the Claimant that he was involved in a dispute with the Course Director, Dr. Protheroe, about this. Dr Pervez did not become involved in this dispute, but became aware the Claimant was not asked to teach the second term of the course, as there were concerns that he had been teaching at an inappropriately complex level for the students and setting excessive numbers of assessments.  
162.	In February 2001, after Dr Peng had left, Dr Pervez became acting Primary Supervisor for the Claimant. Although Dr Pervez was aware of the problems in respect of the Network and his teaching, and had heard some unambiguously negative comments about him personally from Prof. Marshall,  he said that he had no reason to believe there were any major problems with the research work itself: 
“I like to think I started with a very positive attitude to the Claimant and his work. He was the first Ph.D. student I had been the primary supervisor for and I was looking forward to the experience.  In February 2001, when I took over as the Claimant’s primary supervisor, I had a meeting with him. At this meeting it became apparent the only written work he had produced was his 10 Month Report. When I asked him about his progress since then, he claimed he had done a great deal of work but was very vague about the detail. I asked him to provide me with a written update on his work since the 10 Month Report. He said he would do this. He did not claim at that stage that he had been unable to make progress for any reason. He was clear that he had made progress. I understand the Claimant now says that he could not make progress due to:  (1) The time he had needed to spend setting up the Network; (2) disruption/sabotage by the technicians; and (3) his teaching commitments.   I am certain that at that stage he did not raise any of these issues. He was clear he had made good progress. Additionally I am confident both he and I were clear that the setting up of the Network was not in itself part of his research. It was merely something he was going to use to demonstrate his research theories. Building the Network was not supposed to be a major piece of work.” [Emphasis added.]
163.	It is of some significance to note that the voluminous documentary evidence in the case tends to support Dr Pervez’s account in this respect: i.e. that no complaint of any kind was made by the Claimant at this stage as to progress being impeded.
164.	As to contact between February and May 2001 Dr Pervez said,
“Over the next 2-3 months, I met with the Claimant a number of times and asked him what progress he was making and when I could expect to get his updating review. He did not produce anything. He would describe what he was doing but it was always very generalised and vague. I remember him saying something he had done had been published but he never produced this piece of work or any written work or any evidence of or information about peer reviews of any kind.”
Nothing has been produced by the Claimant in evidence which casts any doubt upon that observation by Dr Pervez, and he did not contradict it in his own evidence.
165.	By May 2001, Dr  Pervez said that he thought he was getting nowhere with the Claimant.  Accordingly he asked Prof. Neil Alford to become involved and take the lead in supervising him.
“ I asked him because he was part of the supervisory team.  He had much more experienced of Ph.D.  supervision than me. Also he was the person who was responsible for the EPSRC Quota Award that had been allocated to Thomas.  [Prof. Alford] was very confident he could sort things out.  He said he had supervised all sorts of students in the past and I knew he had helped many of our M. Sc.  students.  Although I was still technically primary supervisor the Claimant was asked to refer to Neil Alford in the first instance in matters relating to his research.”
166.	They arranged a meeting with the Claimant on 21 May 2001.  The Claimant was asked to produce something in writing that showed what stage he was at in his research.  They both wanted to see what progress he had made and what his plans were.  The time had come for him to produce a transfer report.  If the transfer report is not approved of the student remains at M. Phil. level and has to re-submit his report.  Dr Pervez said that the Claimant never actually produced a transfer report even after being specifically asked to do so.  In fact he never defined his project properly or provided details of papers he had published or any peer-review he had carried out.  The Claimant subsequently described transfer reports as a 'bureaucratic exercise' which did not interest him.
167.	On 22nd May 2001, the Claimant produced a written outline of his planned work, which he sent to Prof. Alford. This was not a Transfer Report but it was more than Dr Pervez had been able to extract from him.   It was about this time the Claimant’s complaints about the technicians and interference with his equipment became more intense. Initially he said this was his personal equipment that was being tampered with or was missing. 
168.	On 19th June 2001 Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez had a meeting with the Claimant to try and resolve his difficulties with the technicians. The following day Dr Pervez produced a memorandum dated 20th June 2001 entitled “Outcomes of the meeting on 19th June 2001”. It set out their agreement that The Claimant's equipment should be returned to him and kept in his Research Area, rather than in the laboratory. His Research Area was in another room where he and all the other Ph.D.  students were allocated space. Dr Pervez emailed the Claimant this note on 22nd June 2001.

169.	Prof Alford and Dr Pervez hoped this agreement would resolve the issues. In an email dated 21st June 2001 to Neil Alford and Dr Pervez, however, the Claimant said that it had been agreed that his research was so complex that he had been authorised to create “an ad hoc research group” to assist him with his research. This, said Dr Pervez, was an extraordinary claim, which was not true and not something he had raised before.

170.	On 20th July 2001, Dr Pervez sent the Claimant an email in response to a further complaint he had made about Alan Nigrin. The complaint had been made to Neil Alford in an email dated 3rd July 2001.

171.	A further meeting took place, Dr Pervez said, between Neil Alford and the Claimant on 13th July 2001. The real problem was that the Claimant would or could not define his project, produce a time frame for his research, produce evidence of work completed and peer reviews or even explain what he needed his “missing” equipment for. 

172.	It was as a result of this failure to engage that Professor Bridge, the Head of School became involved. Dr Pervez said he could not recall how this happened. As far as Dr Pervez could tell, Professor Bridge wanted to find out exactly what was going on and why Professor Marshall was no longer prepared to collaborate with the Claimant. Dr Pervez was asked to contact Professor Marshall because Dr Pervez was the person that had most contact with him. Dr Pervez was not asked to approach anyone else.

173.	Professor Marshall's assessment of The Claimant was sent to Dr Pervez by email on 19th July 2001. Professor Marshall's assessment was ‘a devastating appraisal of the Claimant's ability.’ Dr Pervez said he was genuinely surprised how negative it was about the Claimant's actual capacity to undertake research.

174.	Dr Pervez accepted that he was 

“pretty fed up with the Claimant's behaviour by this point and Professor Marshall's assessment made him wonder whether the Claimant was just wasting everyone's time.”

175.	It was in this negative frame of mind, he said, that Dr Pervez sent a short email in reply to Professor Marshall. In that email Dr Pervez said “I hope we could get rid of [The Claimant] somehow”. This was not a considered response, he said. It was written on the spur of the moment as an immediate reaction to the information in Professor Marshall's assessment. 

176.	Dr Pervez said he could not say these sentiments did not reflect his feelings at that particular instant in time but they were not representative of his general attitude to the Claimant nor did they mean Dr Pervez was engaged in a campaign or conspiracy against him. Dr Pervez felt  that he had bent over backwards to accommodate him and no one would have been happier than him if The Claimant had been able to engage in a constructive manner and move forward with his research. 

177.	Another Research Progress Meeting took place on 16th August 2001. Again little was achieved. The Claimant was dismissive of a review of the introduction to his 10 Month report Neil Alford had completed. He called it “pedestrian”. To his surprise, he said, the Claimant asked Dr Pervez to carry out a similar review. Again this meeting was covertly recorded and the transcript speaks for itself. Dr Pervez sent his review to The Claimant in an email dated 4th September 2001, with the minutes of the meeting. 

178.	Although Dr. Xiao was no longer attending the meetings, he carried out a review of the Claimant's 10 Month Report, which Dr Pervez sent to the Claimant in an email dated 5th September 2001. Dr Pervez cannot now remember why Dr. Xiao was asked to do this. A further meeting between the Claimant, Prof Alford and Dr Pervez took place on 26th September 2001. Dr Pervez could not now remember the details of what happened at this meeting except that the Claimant was very rude to him. No minutes were produced probably because it was felt to be pointless. The Claimant has not provided a transcript of any recording he may have made of this meeting.  As I have already mentioned, he says no such meeting took place.

179.	In cross-examination Dr Pervez said that as far as he was concerned that there had never been any problems with lab technicians.  He had been at the SBU since 1986 and had never experienced any such difficulties.  He had been head of telecommunications with the same staff and the same colleagues.
180.	Q [the Claimant]:  C 211 [the email asking for Prof. Marshall’s views] how did you come to write this?  What was going on?  A.  This was the e-mail I wrote because Prof.  Bridge was asking for comments, and I had worked with Ian Marshall from industry.  I was asked to ask Ian Marshall about his views to get his assessment.  I used to meet Prof.  Bridge regularly for various reasons, and he asked me to contact Prof. Marshall because he knew I had outside contacts.  Q.  What was the context?  A.  He wanted to have views because there was a problem going on. So he wanted the views of those who interacted with you.  Prof. Bridge knew that you, Dr Peng, and Prof. Marshall had had contact in 1999-2000.  And that Prof. Marshall had formed an opinion about it.  I did not brief Prof. Bridge.  He asked me to get Ian Marshall's views.  To get his assessment.  So I typed the e-mail dated 18 July at p. 211.  I was your supervisor. Q.  Why did you not think it was necessary to tell me?  A.  Because if the head of School asks for an assessment on a student I do not go and tell the student that.  If Ian Marshall had given a negative reference, it did not mean that that would be decisive.  Q.  Is there a university rule about this?  A.  I do not know.  I did not think it was wrong.  This has nothing to do with your character, it was to do with your ability.  Q.  Did you think of asking me?  A.  No.  It did not cross my mind.  Q.  What did you mean by the phrase “I remember your recommendation to get rid of him”?  A.  I remembered that the three of you had had a meeting: you, Dr Peng, and Prof. Marshall, and he wanted to withdraw.  Marshall felt he wanted to withdraw because it was impossible to work with you and it ended up with bitterness.  He was happy to interact with other students.  The problem was that you would not listen to advice.  He was never impressed by your technical abilities.”  
181.	 I asked Dr Pervez why he had said “I remember your recommendation to get rid of him” and reminded him that the suggestion being made by the Claimant was that he was ‘gathering ammunition’ for Prof. Bridge?  A.  I did not think I was getting ammunition.  [Judge]: “The phrase you used about dynamite might suggest that you had indeed been looking for ammunition and had in fact found dynamite?  A.  No. My use of the word dynamite was impulsive, it was something written in haste.” (The Claimant asserted in closing that Dr Pervez had accepted that he had been gathering ammunition for Prof. Bridge.  My note and my recollection are quite clear that he did not. Mr Hamilton’s note was to the same effect.)
182.	Q [the Claimant]: What about the November e-mail?  A.  Everything had been decided by the time of this.  Q.  The suggestion is that Prof.  Bridge had malice not you.  You were given some orders.  By November it was over.  A.  Our main regret is that you did not succeed.  If you had provided your report and so on all this would be irrelevant.  There was indeed a sense of relief when you had gone.  But I was sad because you were our first Ph.D.  in that group.  I would have had more pleasure than anyone if you had succeeded.
183.	 Dr Pervez said he was seeking a reference about the Claimant in requesting the information from Prof. Marshall.  “I did not know about the Data Protection Act 1998 in this respect: I did not think there was anything wrong with obtaining an academic reference confidentially.  I did all the time.  I just asked Prof. Marshall for a reference.  I would not seek a reference which I knew would be libellous discriminatory and so on.” 
184.	“Q.  Were you are aware that referees should be qualified to give a reference?  A.  He [Marshall] had had interaction with you as part of the team, and he could make some comments.  Initially he may not have been a professor, but he became a visiting professor at some point and from that time we addressed him as Prof.
185.	“Q.  C 202: did you think the basic rules of references were being breached on reading this?  A.  Prof. Bridge wanted several references.  Q.  You were not simply the conduit?  A.  I must have forwarded the e-mail to Prof. Bridge.  It is possible I just forwarded it.  Q.  Without reading it?  A.  Possibly: it is a long time ago.  I was not investigating, Prof.  Bridge  was. I did not get involved in that -- it was a higher level than me.  I had nothing to do with the decision-making.  I thought something very positive might come out of this view -- some guidelines, for example.  I was just asking for his information.  Prof.  Bridge also asked my view.  I did not think there was anything unusual.  I just skim-read it.  Q.  Then thought “dynamite”? A.  I was just doing it for Prof. Bridge.  I thought it was the right thing to forward it to Prof. Bridge.  Q.  Did you not think that this was unfair and a breach of natural justice?  A.  I have always believed that if I am asked for references I give [a true view.] Of course no one deliberately breaks the law or university regulations.  What I did was normal procedure.  Q.  If you call something “dynamite” it could be dangerous?  A.  Sadly ...  I did not give it a second thought.  It was a completely informal thing between colleagues.”  
186.	Dr Pervez continued, “So far as the document at C 1 is concerned at the registration of your course it was “IP” [Internet protocol] not “ATM” whilst ATM had been referred to at enrolment, then changed to IP.  My original impression was that was a minor hardware requirement. Resourcing is not my area.  It is amazing that after all this time you have not understood.  Laboratory facilities are for teaching and not for research.  You did not have outside funding.  Software development only needs one computer, not a network.  That is not expensive. After Dr Peng left it became obvious you needed more resources.  To help you, I decided to see if I could provide you with some resources which you were not entitled to on your scholarship.  So I said you could use it.  No one has ever given a Ph.D. student a laboratory.  It is just not possible.  It does not happen.  You either join a group or you work in your office.  You were given much more than usual. My understanding from Dr Peng was that you only required a small network, so we thought 3 to 4 computers [would be quite adequate.] We always work on the basis of cooperation.”  
187.	Then he said this: “the Ph.D.  is not a minor thing.  The essential component of the Ph.D. is intellectual work. That is then tested empirically. Pure empirical work is not Ph.D. work -- empirical work is the test of the Ph.D.  idea.  In my opinion you should have concentrated on the philosophical side of things.  
188.	 Later he said, “You agreed to produce a manual [for the network], but you never did produce it.” Mr Bangert pointed to C 34, where he had said, “I will begin writing up ... handbook.”  Dr Pervez responded, “Yes: so why was not it produced?  Doing things like this are part of the norms [of behaviour of graduate students] and we expect you as a Ph.D. student to comply with the norms.  No guide to the network was produced by you.  You may have produced some instructions to students.  The staff told me we never got anything useful for the use of the network so the network was never used.  Step-by-step guides are not a manual.”
189.	Later still he said, “We would have a discussion about problems, it was not as casual as you are saying.  I would ask to see your documents -- what you have achieved.  I do not think you would just shake your head.  You did not give me the impression that you had problems or that it was a disaster.  You started these issues in May at a time when Prof. Alford got involved:  that is, these issues about not having enough time to do the work and so on.  I remember asking you for things: documents etc. and you always gave me the impression that things were fine.  But I never saw anything and therefore I thought that Prof. Alford with all his experience could help because I thought maybe I was not going about it right.  It was then that we had these meetings and that you raised these issues.  It was then we started exchanging e-mails etc.  We were worried about your EPSRC studentship.  One believes Ph.D. students are mature students not schoolboys and know what is what.  Q.  Is it quite possible that nothing was produced [in documentary form] because the Claimant just misunderstood?  A.  Well -- it is possible, I suppose.  But I did not find you a person who was confused or misunderstood.  Q.  C 95 [94 to 95] this does not indicate any problems -- asking for documents etc?  A.  This email was to come to meet Prof. Alford.” 
190.	I noted at the time this evidence was given that p. 95 plainly contemplates that documentary evidence of work will be expected of the Claimant.  The preceding question in cross-examination of Dr Pervez was put without realising the implication.  It was necessary for me to spell this out to the Claimant at the time.
191.	Dr Pervez went on to say “You never understood, possibly, a Ph.D. project.  You do not just give a whole lot of “www” references and expect your supervisor to check them.  Normally about 200 pp. will be produced as a first draft.  You take that, in a properly structured version, to your supervisors to be discussed. You have to do comparative work -- compare your work against that of someone else. We said many times that Web links are not the way to do it.  Links are not reliable sources.  The Ph.D. cannot be awarded on those.  There must be evidence that someone has refereed journal contributions.  You were at the 18 months stage and there has to be evidence.  Every supervisor needs that.  That is how everybody does it.  There is no set time for the transfer report although the norm is 15 to 18 months.  The longer you delay the less time you have to do the final innovative part.  Empirical work is the final stage when you test your theory.”  
192.	“Q.  Look at p. C 120:  “instruction to dismantle network.”  You gave Nigrin an oral instruction to dismantle it did you not?  A.  That is completely wrong.  The whole idea was to help.  But everything I say in good faith you took wrongly.” I noted at the time it was asked that this question produced an answer which was the opposite of that evidently expected. 

Prof. Alford 

193.	In 1999 Prof. Alford was a research professor at SBU. So far as his initial involvement with the Claimant  was concerned, he said,

“I believe I was asked to be one of his three supervisors because I had extensive experience in supervising Ph.D.  students. I was his 3rd supervisor. Dr Peng was his 1st supervisor and Dr Pervez was his 2nd supervisor. Although I was always available to assist and advise if required, initially I had no day to day contact with Thomas. This is quite normal. In my experience, the usual pattern Ph.D.  studies follow is that the 1st supervisor (also referred to as the “Director of Studies”) tends to be involved in the early stages of a student’s research while the research project is refined and then his involvement diminishes as the student pursues his research. By its nature Ph.D.  research is original work and the expectation is that as the student pursues this, his knowledge of the research subject will surpass that of his supervisors.

“As Thomas’ research progressed, I became aware Dr Peng (Thomas’s 1st supervisor) was having some problems with him. I got on well with Dr Peng and he would discuss things with me. He told me Thomas was deviating from the original research plan, which had been a modelling project. He was apparently now saying he wanted to make it more of a practical project requiring hardware. Dr Peng also told me he found Thomas hard to deal with and was concerned about where their relationship was going.

“It is worth noting that Thomas’ research started out as a modest project requiring no equipment apart from a computer. Thomas then increased its size and scope. Apart from any concerns there may have been about a student at Thomas’ level undertaking too large a project, a major concern was that the EPSRC budget did not cover the hardware (i.e. computers, servers, network cards etc) he said he required. As I understand it Dr Pervez (Thomas’ 2nd supervisor) helped Thomas out by arranging for the equipment to be purchased using funds from the teaching budget. Dr Pervez told me later that the idea had been for Thomas to set up the computer network he said he needed for his research and he could then use it when it was not being used for teaching purposes. ...  In or around February 2001, Dr Peng left the SBU at short notice. He had been under stress as a result of personal problems. His departure meant Dr Pervez had to act as Thomas’ 1st supervisor/Director of Studies. Again this is quite normal and one of the reasons a student has 3 supervisors.”

194.	He said that it was in or around May 2001 that Dr Pervez came to him and asked if he would become actively involved with the supervision of Thomas’ Ph.D. Dr Pervez told him he was having difficulty finding out what progress the Claimant had made and what he was doing. He had been unable to get the Claimant to produce a Transfer Report.
 
“Naturally I was more than happy to help Dr Pervez. I was very confident I would be able to move things forward as I had helped many students who were having difficulties in progressing their research in the past. I was not an expert in the area Thomas was researching. I did not feel this would be a problem for me. In my experience student research problems usually involved failure to follow proper scientific procedure and method and difficulties in organising and presenting information. The skills required to assist with these problems are transferable and applicable to most scientific research.  I have seen an email dated 18th May 2001 from Thomas to me referring to a meeting on 21st May 2001.... I believe this was the first meeting I had with Thomas. Following this meeting, on 22nd May 2001, Thomas emailed me an outline of his work. At some point at the beginning of my direct involvement he told me his research was 80% complete. I was heartened by this and believed that there was a good chance he could complete his Ph.D.  reasonably swiftly. I wanted Thomas to produce a Transfer Report because his 10 Month Report was not detailed enough to describe the substance of his Ph.D.”

195.	As a result of his meetings with The Claimant it became clear there was a problem between the Claimant and the technicians in the laboratory where he was working. The Claimant alleged they were taking or interfering with his equipment. 

“I had known Alan Nigrin for some time and regarded him as a dedicated professional. I believed that whatever the difficulties were they could be sorted out. I have seen an email from The Claimant dated 6th June 2001, in which he suggests Alan was included in our meeting on 21st May 2001. I have no recollection of this but if it did happen, its purpose would have been to try and address the problems the Claimant appeared to be having in the laboratory.”

196.	He said that the outline the Claimant sent him on 22nd May 2001 consisted of a table of contents with chapter headings purporting to show what his thesis might look like. This appeared encouraging and would have been impressive if the chapter headings related to work which had actually been done and were backed up with substantial information. Unfortunately The Claimant was never able to demonstrate he had done the necessary work. Despite attempts to get him to produce the work he had done he preferred to focus on the problems he claimed he was having with the technicians and his equipment. 

197.	The Claimant had sent Prof. Alford a long email dated 21st June 2001. In this email he claimed it had been agreed his research was so complex that he had been authorised to create “an ad hoc research group” to assist him with it.

“I was certainly unaware of any such agreement or authorisation. He had never mentioned anything like this to me and it did not reflect our discussions, which were about equipment and the technical staff. His claim seems extremely unlikely for many reasons, not least because one of the key requirements for Ph.D.  research is that you do it single handed. If you do not you run the risk of being accused of not having done all your own work.  I did not take this issue up with The Claimant at the time. I cannot recall now why, but it is likely it was because the following day I received an email from him stating that he felt he had “irreconcilable differences” with his supervisory team. I have no independent recollection of how I dealt with this issue but in his email The Claimant refers to us having had a meeting (presumably on 21st or 22nd June 2001) during which he asked me whether the School had a Code of Practice where he could find the relevant grievance procedure. I do remember this meeting because I told him the School had no Code of Practice. I later discovered I was wrong about this. The Claimant did not in fact pursue any complaint about his supervisory team at that stage.”

198.	Prof. Alford said that a further meeting took place on 27th June 2001. The Claimant made a recording of it despite it having been made clear by Prof Alford that he did not have permission to do so. He had seen the Claimant’s transcript of this meeting. Broadly speaking its content reflects what happened. He is shown as saying he understood that the Claimant had basically completed most of the requirements towards his Ph.D., because this was what the Claimant was saying to him at the time, he said.  However, he added, 

“My view is all these meetings appeared to go round in circles. The Claimant would complain and make demands and show no willingness to involve himself in the research project and move things forward. He would not move from his position that the technical staff’s job was to assist him in his research. He blamed the technicians for his lack of progress. He seemed preoccupied with gaining an acknowledgment of his status vis-a-vis the technicians and his claims that he needed equipment returned in order to move his research forward. He refused to accept it was not the technicians’ job to assist him. He would not or could not produce any evidence of what he had actually done and would not or could not tell us what outstanding work he intended to do. I was receiving emails from The Claimant on a regular basis raising issues and complaints many of which were of a petty nature. Attempts to address issues we raised were generally met with a lack of co-operation. As time went by I became concerned that his complaints were displacement activity enabling him to avoid facing up to the fact he had made little progress since passing his 10 month Report. The lack of information about his progress meant it was impossible to judge whether The Claimant’ claims about the alleged missing equipment had any basis in reality. I felt if we could sort out the equipment issue to his satisfaction then perhaps we could move his research forward. However efforts to get The Claimant to identify the equipment and have it returned were unsuccessful and the subject of a great deal of email correspondence.” [Emphasis added.]

199.	Having read the transcripts of the meetings covertly recorded by the Claimant, I agree entirely with Prof. Alford’s observation that all the meetings appeared to go round in circles, with the Claimant complaining continually about procedural matters of the most minor importance, and making demands of his supervisors, but showing no willingness to involve himself in the research project and move things forward.  Far from supporting the Claimant’s case, they confirm the accuracy of Prof. Alford’s view: it does indeed seem to have been “displacement activity.”

200.	On 13th July 2001, Prof. Alford had another meeting with the Claimant regarding missing equipment.  Prof. Alford said it was not clear whether it was his personal equipment or equipment he obtained from the Learning Resource Centre (“LRC”). The Claimant appeared to admit that he was unable to actually say what equipment was missing, but after some discussion, Prof. Alford decided they should go to the laboratory together and include Alan Nigrin in the meeting. Again this was an effort to resolve the problems The Claimant was complaining about. When they arrived in the laboratory, the Claimant was extremely confrontational with Mr Nigrin, and Prof. Alford said he was not surprised when Mr Nigrin became upset at The Claimant’s attitude, which he considered to be rude and arrogant. (This impression was starkly and dramatically confirmed by Prof. Alford in cross-examination when the Claimant invited his attention to the transcript of this meeting, as I mention in detail below.)

201.	When Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford began to press the Claimant to produce a Transfer Report, he started to suggest that he should have what he referred to as an “external supervisor”. He wanted someone from another University to have responsibility for supervising his research. He claimed no one at the SBU was capable of understanding his work. While Prof. Alford said that he was quite happy for the Claimant “to get an external take on his research” he was never agreeable to an “external supervisor”. Not only did he not accept that the SBU was unable to provide adequate supervision, he considered the suggestion completely unworkable. SBU could not appoint a supervisor who was not accountable to the University. When on 17th July 2001 he received an email from the Claimant with names of suggested “external examiners” this was what Prof. Alford had expected him to be doing to “to get an external take on his research,” so that the Claimant might produce a Transfer Report and send it to them in order to get some advice and guidance. Prof. Alford said his thinking was that if the Claimant would not listen to anyone inside the SBU it might be a way of getting him to accept advice.

202.	In July 2001, Professor Bryan Bridge became involved in the problems with The Claimant’s research. Prof. Alford had not asked for him to intervene, but when he did become involved Prof. Alford hoped his authority would help resolve things. The memorandum from Prof. Alford dated 25th July 2001 sent by him to Professor Bridge was the result, he believed, of Professor Bridge having asked him to put something in writing as Prof. Bridge was concerned to have as much information as possible about what had been going on. Professor Bridge’s memorandum dated 27th July 2001 refers to a meeting on 23rd July 2001.  At this meeting it was proposed that Dr Perry Xiao should become involved in the Claimant’s supervision. This is a suggestion Prof. Alford had made because Dr Xiao had technical expertise in the Claimant’s research area. Prof. Alford did not remember the Claimant disagreeing with this suggestion at the meeting. The Claimant was told he should attend a weekly “Research Progress Meeting” (“RPM”) with Prof. Alford, Dr Pervez and Dr Xiao.

203.	The first RPM was on 1st August 2001. The Claimant covertly recorded this meeting. Prof. Alford said the Claimant’s transcript appears to reflect what happened. The Claimant raised numerous preliminary issues that prevented them from discussing his research. He was uncooperative and rude. He and Dr Xiao had an argument when Dr Xiao admonished him for his poor attitude.   At the next RPM on 8th August 2001, The Claimant made it clear he would not accept Dr Xiao as part of his supervisory team and insisted he leave the meeting. The Claimant’s transcript appears to reflect what happened.  (A detailed extract is set out below in the section of this judgment dealing with Dr Xiao’s evidence.)  However, although at the meeting on 8th August 2001, the Claimant finally produced some very limited documentary evidence of his work, none of that was a referenced paper nor had any of the papers been peer-reviewed. “Nothing he produced gave any indication he was anywhere near being able to produce a Transfer Report.”

204.	The next RPM was on 16th August 2001. This was the meeting where he referred to comments Prof. Alford had made in a review of the introduction to the 10 month report as “pedestrian”.  The next RPM took place on 26th September 2001. At this meeting Prof. Alford said that the Claimant was extremely rude to Dr Pervez, who had also reviewed the introduction to his 10 month report. Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford both found the Claimant’s attitude at this meeting so bad that they decided further meetings were pointless.  Prof. Alford added in his witness statement: 

“I have not seen a transcript of the recording I assume The Claimant must have made of the meeting on 26th September 2001.”

Nor was such a transcript presented to the Court. The Claimant, of course, says that there was no such meeting. 

205.	Prof. Alford notified Professor Bridge of their decision. Prof. Bridge  asked him to put this in writing to Dr Farwell, the Dean of Academic Affairs who was conducting disciplinary proceedings to which the Claimant was subject at that time. His memorandum to Dr Farwell dated 1st October 2001, he said in his witness statement,  sets out the situation accurately:  

“Prof. Bridge has requested that I write to you regarding the tone of the meeting which took place between Thomas Bangert, Dr Pervez and myself on Wednesday 26th of September 2001.  As you are probably aware, Dr Pervez, Dr Xiao and myself are supervising Thomas Bangert’s Ph.D.   Dr Xiao is no longer present at the meetings, Mr Bangert having requested that he cease attending.  We have had several meetings with Mr Bangert in which we have tried to focus on his requirements for the Ph.D. completion. To this end we have asked Thomas to concentrate on the M. Phil.  transfer report.  His response was to say that his 10 month report would be the basis.  Therefore, I agreed as did Dr  Xiao and  Dr  Pervez, to review the 10 month report as well as other information in the form of two preprints and a presentation on the web.  At the meeting on 26 September, Mr Bangert's response [to] our comments to say that they were pedestrian, and in  Dr  Pervez's case he completely dismissed the comments in a manner which I felt was both rude and abusive.  The meeting confirmed my view that Mr Bangert does not seem able to focus on bringing the Ph.D. to completion.  He will not reason with his supervisors at all and his approach is always highly confrontational.  He has refused to sign the SBU change of supervisor form (after Dr Peng's departure) as he feels that the supervisory team is not capable of supervising his work.  This is not the case.  There appears to be no progress beyond the 10 month report.  Finally, when I was asked to become a member of the supervisory team, I accepted believing that my experience as a Ph.D. supervisor and as a Ph.D. examiner would be of help.  I am now convinced that Mr Bangert is not capable of receiving criticism about his work and is unwilling to take steps to make progress.  I can see no evidence of work on the Ph.D. since his 10 month report, despite the fact that the supervisory team has requested evidence that progress towards the transfer report be presented.”

206.	The Claimant was excluded from the SBU in November 2001. Prof. Alford  could not recall how he had been notified of this. The Claimant did call him after his exclusion, urging him to take his side and support him. 

“I continued to receive these calls until sometime in 2002 when Karen Stephenson, the then University Secretary and Clerk to the Board of Governors told me he had been covertly tape recording meetings and conversations. I found this very disappointing. After that I refused to speak to him.”

207.	Prof. Alford said that his final contact with the Claimant came some years later. He sent e-mails in December 2007 and January 2008 requesting that Prof. Alford assist him in dealing with his claim. The first e-mail he sent was in fairly measured tones, although the allegations he made, that Prof. Alford  was bullied by Professor Bridge into giving untruthful evidence, were completely untrue. 

“The content of the second e-mail was rather more concerning. He made comparisons between my position, which on his version of events involved giving untruthful evidence against him, and that of war criminals in Nazi Germany who refused to acknowledge their crimes.  He indicated that he intended to contact me from time to time to remind me of the ‘ugly deeds of my past.’ In response I sent The Claimant an e-mail making it clear that I did not wish to receive further e-mails from him and that I would not be responding to those he did send. I have not heard from The Claimant since.”

208.	In cross-examination by Mr Bangert Prof. Alford was asked first of all about paragraph 37 of his witness statement and the covert recording of meetings by Mr Bangert. Prof. Alford’s evidence was that, “I found the recording of meetings disappointing, because the recordings were made with someone I was trying to help. Q. Was it only disappointing because you say you were trying to help the Claimant? A: You did ask me if it was acceptable for you to tape the meeting and I said no. I therefore found it disappointing that you did so. Q: But if you are trying to get the Claimant out of the University, it wouldn't be disappointing?”  [Prof Alford clearly failed to understand what Mr Bangert was suggesting to him.  With a baffled look he said “I gave you my answer.”] I intervened to explain that what the Claimant appeared to be suggesting was that Prof. Alford would only be genuinely disappointed if he were truly trying to help Mr Bangert.  If the covert recording of a conversation were made upon the basis that Prof. Alford was not truly trying to help him, but was actually conspiring to get him expelled from the University, that would not be “disappointing” -- Mr Bangert was suggesting that it would be entirely fair?  Prof. Alford then replied to the Claimant, “That does assume that I was secretly conspiring against you, and that's not true. Otherwise, I simply don't have an answer to your hypothesis.”

209.	“Q. Going to the central issue, when did you first become aware of the document at C 211?[ referring to Dr Pervez’s emails to Prof. Marshall.]    A. I cannot recall I guess towards the very end I suppose.  Q.  Before I was excluded?  A.  I am not sure if I saw it before then.  Actually I do not think I have ever seen them [the e-mails] before.  I have seen the reference to “the text on Thomas is dynamite” I think I saw that in your witness statement.  Q.  Please read all e-mails from 211 on -- what would you have done if you had read those in July 2001?  A.  What we have here is an e-mail Pervez to  Marshall explaining the difficulties about getting you through your Ph.D., and then a bit of text about dynamite, and I do not understand the context of that.  I do not think it would have made much difference to me.  What we were really trying to do was to get to a point where we had a transfer report.  The point about this is that if a Ph.D. student is going to go forward to a Ph.D. , then, although a 10-month report is crucial, the transfer report is a much more substantial thing and demonstrates that you are going to be able to handle a very much more detailed research project -- i.e. a Ph.D. thesis -- and it is therefore a terribly important stage.  And a Ph.D. student's sole focus is to produce original research.  By the time you get to the transfer report you should have a substantial body of original work which demonstrates that you can go on to the Ph.D.  Q.  You are pushing the Claimant to produce a transfer report even if that affected his lab work adversely?  A.  Yes you should have focused on your transfer report.  Q.  Do you see nothing untoward in these e-mails?  A.  I see a sense of frustration but nothing untoward really.  I would not have written the same sort of thing myself

210.	The Claimant then asked him: “Q.  If you had a copy of these e-mails would you have provided a copy to me?”  A.  I would have respected the confidence of the author.  I do not think I would have shown it to you, but I did not have these e-mails.” 

211.	Then, with what appeared to me to be transparent honesty, Prof. Alford said directly to the Claimant,   “Thomas, having read the e-mail I am not sure what the big problem is.  Q.  Do you say you had no idea that there was anything like this before?  A.  I know something had passed between Ian and Dr Pervez.  Q.  Look at C202 [Prof. Marshall’s email to Dr Pervez] -- do you think that is perfectly okay?  A.  This is the first time I have read it and it makes me think that this is written by someone who has thought about it. Q.  Do you agree with it?  A.   The area of work is not within my expertise.  What he is talking about is your work.  This e-mail gives a comment on your ability to take this through and it is not very encouraging.  I agree with it in broad terms.  [Judge]: is there anything in it in particular with which you disagree?  A: no.

212.	[The Claimant]: you think Marshall is entitled to give his opinion when you were acting as the supervisor?  A.  Anyone is entitled to give a comment.  Q. As Marshall was working for a possible competitor, the Claimant’s supervisors should not have taken it into account?  A. I had not seen it.  [Judge re-phrases question]: what the Claimant is saying is that Dr Pervez, who was his supervisor, was getting this from Marshall.  Marshall worked for a company (BT) who were potential competitors in respect of developments of a technical nature which the Claimant was researching.  A.  I see.  You would have to ask if Marshall was a competitor.  I do not know the answer.  I have never met Marshall.  I know his name.  If there was definitely a conflict of interest in terms of intellectual property it would be improper but how do you prove that?  My responsibility was to get you through to a Ph.D.”

213.	At the Claimant's request Prof. Alford was recalled for further cross-examination on 6 November.  Some of that seemed to me to be quite irrelevant to any issue in the case.  However, the Claimant asked Prof. Alford “Q.  If someone had said the Claimant was a rubbish Ph.D. student would you have agreed?  A.  I do not think that is accurate.  Q.  Look at C202 [Prof. Marshall’s email to Dr Pervez.]?  A.  It does not say anything about rubbish here.  Marshall had a problem with your work.  You are the one who has used the word rubbish.  The scientific work you were carrying out is not within my field of expertise, so I would hesitate to comment.  Q.  The Ph.D. was not going well?  A.  One of the reasons I became involved was because your progress was not rapid enough to the transfer report.  Q.  The research or the paperwork?  A.  There simply was not enough paperwork: we did not have the information [from you] to take it forward.  I repeatedly asked for a transfer report to take it to the next stage.  I would have liked to have seen evidence of something being done.  Q. On theoretical or empirical work? A. I wanted to see a transfer report which we could take to the degrees committee.  There just was not enough material.  Meetings with you went round and round in circles.  We had received a 10 month report -- that had been done before I got involved -- I may have signed it off.  I agree that existed, I may have had a copy.  The purpose of my involvement was because we wanted to get you to the point of the transfer report because I have a lot of experience of getting Ph.D. students through.  The structure and so on of the transfer report was my field -- the content was for my colleagues.  I would not have been the one to have made an assessment from a scientific point of view of your work.  My interest was the structure. There was not a structure.  That was what was wrong.  Hence our discussions with you.  Generally speaking we never got to a point where we could make an assessment because we simply did not have enough information.  Instead you would be making complaints about the technical staff, the equipment etc.”

214.	“Q. What did you think was behind the complaints?  A.  The truth is that even if there were issues with the equipment etc it still should have been possible for you to get a structure in place.  Q.  Do you say something different at paragraph 23?  “Petty” and “lack of cooperation.”  Are those character judgments?  A.  If there had been co-operation, that would have indicated we might get a transfer report.  Q.  Perhaps I had a structure etc for the transfer report, and I was just being obstinate in not giving it to you.  A.  That did not occur to me.  If you had it, why not hand it over?  Q.  Could the reason have been deliberate obstructiveness?  A.  Yes.  I did think you were being deliberately obstructive because we simply went round in circles and it is frustrating when you are trying to find a way forward for a student to get through a transfer report, if none of the advice I and other supervisors are giving is being acted on.”

215.	Prof. Alford added, most significantly, in my judgment, “The key request we were making was ‘please may we have some evidence that you’re getting the transfer report together’ but it is broadly accurate to say that I was not getting anything.  You simply were not producing.  It was frustrating but I did not find it particularly annoying.  I just wanted to get you through the transfer report.  The phrase “displacement activity” may well be my view.  I do not think that that is a reflection upon your character.  I just began to wonder if all the complaints were just displacement activity.  I did not say that you are not up to the job.  You may well have been up to the job, but you just would not or did not demonstrate that you were.

216.	“Q. Is it the Claimant's duty to demonstrate to you that he is up to the job?  A.  Yes.  Q.  So you started with the assumption that he is not up to the job, did you?  A.  I did not make that assumption.  I started out on the basis that you were up to the job but I did not see any evidence that you were going to get the job done.  Q. So the burden of proof is on me to prove I was up to the job?  A.  Normally a Ph.D. starts with reviews of the literature, and general research, and you get through to the 10-month report as Thomas did, and thereafter the student will be working to produce his thesis.  And one of the key relationships is the student/supervisor relationship.  That relationship is to support the student to ensure that all the key parts of the structure are put in place so as to satisfy an external examiner.  So my concern after a few meetings with Thomas was that we were not making the progress necessary to get to that stage.”  

217.	The witness did not agree that the term ‘facilitator’ was the correct term to use to describe a supervisor’s role.  “It is not true that I ever made a judgment that you could never get a Ph.D.  The problem was that the work was such that we could not have the material for a satisfactory transfer report.  Q.  Did you ever express your concerns about the work not being up to scratch?  A.  I had no evidence on which to judge it: I could not tell if it was up to scratch or not. It was for Dr Pervez to assess the technical merit.  Q.  Did it never occur to you to go to the laboratory?   A.  I did.  But the nature of my role as supervisor was to ensure that you produced a structure.  A Ph.D. is examined in a room, not in the laboratory.  

218.	Q.  Did it ever cross your mind that the problem was with you and that you were asking me to do something unreasonable?  A. No, neither.  I did not look at the regulations at the time.  Q.  C 180 at 184: is that not me saying the problem is with you etc?  A.  No I am trying to help, and I think it does sound as though I am trying to help.  It would have been a very good idea for Perry Xiao to have been the Claimant’s supervisor because he had the technical knowledge to take him on.  Q.  Was it a disciplinary matter for the Claimant not to accept Perry Xiao as his supervisor?  A.  I think you made a point that you did not want him, but my memory is vague. Perry Xiao may not have wanted you.  Dr Xiao was a person of high integrity who did supervise students very well and he would have helped you.  I do not think it was reasonable for you to have the concerns which you clearly did.  I fully accept that if for some reason you did not like Perry Xiao there was no point in forcing you, and in the end that is precisely what happened i.e. the net result was that Perry no longer supervised you.”  The witness added “I felt that Thomas was rather rude to Dr Xiao, and confrontational.”

219.	 “Q. Were you aware that there were moves afoot to get rid of the Claimant?  A.  I do not know about that.  We were saying we were not trying to get rid of you.  It would not be good for the South Bank University to lose you.  As far as I was concerned you are there to get a Ph.D.” 

220.	Then the transcript of the covert recording of the meeting on 1 August 2001 at 10 a.m. was referred to, which is at p. 355.

“AP [Dr Pervez] : The basic thing is really ... I will be honest ... very, very honest with you. All of us are trying that somehow we should move forward, really. There is nothing else really. I know you have some doubts, ok, but there isn't anything for you to worry about. At least in this meeting.
TB [the Claimant]: You can't say that because I have the written evidence here.  [The Claimant was referring to pp. C242-247 BB’s memorandum re allegations of misconduct by TB as a part-time lecturer and as a research student.]
AP: As far as this meeting is concerned that is the whole purpose. I am trying to find a way to move forward.
TB: I know you have been called by BB to make sure that I don't pass my transfer report. That is what this is all about. 
NA [Prof. Alford]: I can't imagine ... I simply do not understand why you would come to that conclusion.
TB: Ask [Prof. Bridge for]  a copy of this and I am sure you will come to the same conclusion.
NA: Well, I will. I will have a read through it. But I would be astonished ... I would be absolutely astonished ... you are just not ... it can't ... its just not possible.
TB: I am sure you will be very astonished when you read some of these things.
PX [Dr Xiao]: No, no, no. In any circumstances if you fail your Ph.D.  project the University or the School will have nothing to gain. They will not gain anything.
TB: In this case, however, they have less to lose. Because, the University is at the moment liable, and South... 
PX: Yeah, because you are making trouble for everyone.
TB: Like I said, if you want to treat me like that then I would ask that you don't take part in these meeting and that you have no further involvement with this Ph.D.  project. That is just not a helpful attitude. 
PX: Well, it’s not us who is not very helpful. You see, we almost spend 1 hour in this meeting. I am trying to sort of evaluate your project, and you refuse to talk anything about your project.
TB: I haven't made any comments that are demeaning or untrue or intended to diminish anyone's point of view. Now, I am very unhappy that I hear things like that. And I want to make sure, I will say straight up, honestly, that I don't want involvement with people who take that kind of view. And this is exactly what I am talking about here. That you have been instructed to get rid of me basically [AP: No, no, I deny that, under no circumstances] and we can see that from attitudes like that.
AP: I have not been given any instruction, either verbal or in private, or in any form. All I have been asked is that we should ... again I will be very honest, that has the general relation, try somehow to talk, just talk.
TB: Can you confirm then that you have been asked to provide information for this [a reference to the Bryan Bridge memorandum of 27 July 2001 C 242ff.]
AP: Well, the point is you see what happens between me and other members of staff. 
TB: You said you wanted to be honest, so please give an honest answer. It is a yes or no question.
AP: I.... 
NA: I don't know what ... this document, does it ... in that document does it discuss how we are going to progress the Ph.D. . Because if it does then lets just talk about that bit.
TB: Yes. It does.
AP: Where does it say, because I ... actually I haven't read it so I don't have all the details. All I know is about the last instructions given to you, because BB ...
TB: You would have to ask BB for a copy first because I am not allowed to give it to you.
AP: All right. All right. So you see the basic point is that what I understand is that we got together just for one purpose. And that is to find a way ... we all know that there have been difficulties. We want to find a way so that somehow we can make progress. You see I told you many times. I told you many, many times.
TB: So the answer is yes!
NA: Yes to what?
TB: That he has been asked by BB to provide information for this document.
NA: So? ... so, so, so what. I don't understand. 
TB: You will understand when you read it.
NA: Yeah, but I don't care about that. What I care about is how are we going to get you through a Ph.D. . Or in the first instance, how do we going to get you through this transfer.....”

221.	Mr Bangert continued his cross-examination of Prof Alford as follows: “Q. When you say ‘I do not think I had read the document from Brian Bridge at C 242ff at that point’ do you now think the Claimant was right not to want to do the transfer report?  A.  No.  Q.  After the Brian Bridge report did you continue to press? A. I cannot recall when I read the Brian Bridge document.  I accept I did continue to pursue you for the transfer report.  Q.  P. 246 paragraph 18: suggests that I am already out with an M. Phil.  at best?  A.  No.  Look at p. 247: that refers to formal meetings -- we were still trying to get you through to the Ph.D. this demonstrates that we were still trying to get through to the transfer report, and 222: we are trying our level best to help you, to have resources for you, to try to find a way through for you.”

222.	The Claimant then read the whole of the memo or letter at  p. 576 dated 1 October 2001 from Prof Alford to Ruth Farwell.  

“Dear Ruth, 
Bryan Bridge has requested that I write to you regarding the tone of the last meeting which took place between Thomas Bangert, Dr Pervez and myself on Wednesday 26th of September 2001.  As you are probably aware, Dr Pervez, Dr Xiao and myself are supervising Thomas Bangert's Ph.D.  Dr Xiao is no longer present at the meetings, Mr Bangert having requested that he cease attending.
We have had several meetings with Mr Bangert in which we have tried to focus on his requirements for the Ph.D. completion.  To this end we have asked Thomas to concentrate on the M. Phil.  transfer report.  His response was to say that his 10 month report would be the basis.  Therefore, I agreed, as did Dr Xiao and Dr Pervez, to review the 10 month report as well as other information in the form of two preprints and a presentation on the web.
At the meeting on 26 September, Mr Bangert's response to our comments were [sic] to say that they were pedestrian, and in Dr Pervez's case he completely dismissed the comments in a manner which I felt was both rude and abusive.
The meeting confirmed my view that Mr Bangert does not seem able to focus on bringing the Ph.D. to completion.  He will not reason with his supervisors at all and his approach is always highly confrontational.  He has refused to sign the SPU change of supervisor form (after Dr Peng's departure) as he feels that the supervisory team is not capable of supervising his work.  This is not the case.  There appears to be no progress beyond the 10 month report.  
Finally, when I was asked to become a member of the supervisory team I accepted, fully believing that my experience as a Ph.D. supervisor and as a Ph.D. examiner would be of help.  I am now convinced that Mr Bangert is not capable of receiving criticism about his work and is unwilling to take steps to make progress.  I can see no evidence of work on the Ph.D. since his 10 month report despite the fact that the supervisory team has requested evidence that progress towards the transfer report be presented.”

223.	The cross-examination of Prof Alford by the Claimant continued by pointing to the reference to the 26th September as the date of the “pedestrian” comment. “Q.  Do you say Dr Xiao was still supervising?  A.  I say he is no longer coming to meetings. On 26 September you said that my comments were pedestrian and you dismissed Dr Peng’s comments.  The only thing I may have got wrong is the date: the meeting referred to as on the 26th of September was in fact the meeting at 5:10 PM on 16 August 2000, if this is the occasion when the Claimant used the word ‘pedestrian.’ 

224.	“Q.  Other than using the term “pedestrian” did I say anything else rude to you?  A.  No.  Q.  Or to anyone else?  A.  Yes: for example the incident with Mr Nigrin.  What you did may not have been so bad as to justify disciplinary action, but I thought your behaviour was rude and possibly amounted to bullying, too.  I did not admonish you.  I cannot recall the detail of what was said, but it was very clear to me that Mr Nigrin was upset.  My intention was for Dr Farwell to know the facts.  I thought you were out of order.

225.	No doubt was thrown upon the content of the letter by the Claimant’s cross-examination of Prof. Alford, in my view.  It is contemporaneous with the events described by Prof. Alford in evidence, and represents a reliable account in my judgment of the final position which had been reached between the Claimant and his supervisors. 

“Bullying”
226.	“Q.  Do you agree I came to you said I was being bullied?  A.  I simply cannot recall.  Q.  See bundle C 180 at 185? [another transcript of a discussion in which bullying was referred to.]  A.  I despise bullying.  If I had seen it I would take firm action -- if there were serious evidence of it.  Q.  If someone comes to you and says he is being bullied it is your duty to investigate it?  A.  You were within your rights [to say what you thought,] but I was there, and nothing that I saw made me feel it was bullying.

227.	 “Q.  Then we went to the laboratory p. 188 at 190 to 191: what do you mean in that last bit -- 'I can see what you are doing'?  A.  I felt -- and now I know that you were recording it that [feeling] is reinforced -- that you were goading Mr Nigrin.  That is why I said 'I can see what you are doing'.  Throughout this conversation I thought you were goading him.  You were being provocative.  I did not understand why.  In retrospect I have come to the view that it was because you were recording you were trying to get him to lose his temper.”

228.	This cross-examination and the evidence adduced as a result of it was, it seems,  intended by the Claimant to demonstrate (a) that he was being bullied by Mr Nigrin; and (b) that Prof. Alford had witnessed it.  Far from amounting to such evidence in the result, however, it had a diametrically opposite effect: Prof. Alford did not regard Mr Nigrin’s conduct as bullying, but he regarded the Claimant's conduct as amounting to a deliberate goading of Mr Nigrin.  The Claimant's conduct, evidenced in a secretly-taped recording made by him of the conversation, reinforced the opinion which Prof. Alford had formed at the time.  It demonstrated to Prof. Alford that he was quite deliberately trying to goad Mr Nigrin into losing his temper, so that he would have evidence to back up wholly unjustified complaints of bullying.  Having listened to the recording myself and having considered the matter in detail I agree with Prof. Alford's view.

Empirical work
229.	“Q.  On 13 July you came to the laboratory and found that I was complaining about things?  A.  You complained a great deal about a lot of things, and it was difficult to determine which were crucial and which not.  You had access to the laboratory and the equipment.  It was my assumption that you were making progress, but we never saw any evidence on paper.  By evidence I mean documentary evidence of output.  [Judge]: did you ever see any such evidence in fact?  A.  Not enough to comprise a transfer report.  What goes into the transfer report are written up results from laboratory work.  If you had been working in the laboratory I would have expected to see some documentary evidence of it. [Claimant]:  C 360: does not that contradict what you are saying all along -- a reference to vast tracts of stuff?  A.  That was a reference to the vast tracts of e-mails you sent.  There was nothing in that which would make a transfer report.  You significantly failed to provide any material.  A personal web page is not such material.  Your idea of what is appropriate material is so far removed from mine.  To have a Ph.D. you have to produce a thesis.  To get there you have to produce a transfer report.  

230.	“Q. But it was your job to cut down my material?  A.  You have put your finger on the difference between a taught course such as an M. Sc., and a Ph.D. where you produce the material.  The transfer report is a document which you must produce.  Empirical work would not need to be complete to go into a transfer report, but I did not see any.  What I could give a private judgement upon was your ability to compile a transfer report and you did not show it.  Having vast amounts of explanatory work is just like having references to an encyclopaedia.  You did not produce a transfer report which I could read.  If you produced vast amounts of information [from empirical work] that could go into a transfer report, then why did you not put it in?  You said that you were not going to put material into the transfer report -- in those circumstances the supervisor's job is to persuade you that you have to do that, or [else]...” 
231.	I asked the witness about the tape-recording of conversations. “At C169 the Claimant asked if there were any objection to his tape recording a meeting -- did you see a tape recorder in his possession?  A.  I cannot remember seeing any tape recorder.  I was very surprised at the request because it was the first time I ever remember being asked if I minded a conversation being taped and I did say 'no' [that is he refused the request.] After that I did not think that the recording was being made.  Q [Mr Bangert] was the reason that you refused that you did not think it was necessary to make a recording?  A.  The key thing is the establishment of trust.  We should have a collaborative effort.  The notion that anyone would need to record a conversation is completely alien to that.  I have told colleagues and they are astonished.  It may not be illegal, but it is a breach of trust.” 

232.	The Claimant then asked, “Q.  Why is it a breach of trust?” (Prof. Alford gave a look of incomprehension at this question.) A.  The idea is to establish trust in a relationship between student and supervisor: there should be such trust.  We never got to the point of collaboration at all.”

233.	This is a convenient point at which to mention the evidence of Karen Stephenson, the Clerk to the Board of Governors of the university. She had attended the disciplinary hearing as a note-taker. She is in fact qualified as a solicitor, but she had no legal duties to perform at the hearing. Unknown to her at the Claimant had made a covert recording of that hearing. This only came to light at a later time. For some reason the Claimant chose to cross- examine Ms. Stephenson to ask whether there was any prohibition of covert recording, (even though he had been told not to make a recording.) She replied “I don't think there is an explicit prohibition of covert recording, but if somebody says 'no' I would have thought that's the end of the matter. Covert recording is in my view dishonest, but that's irrelevant. We had no point about your recording [when later disclosed] as we had no means of scientifically examining it. However, I thought you were dishonest.”

234.	Dr Perry Xiao has the following degrees: a Ph. D in Photophysics, a B. Eng. in Opto-Electronics and an M. Sc in Condensed Matter Physics. In 2000-2001, I was a lecturer at the SBU, teaching various subjects in telecommunications and computer networking at both post-graduate and graduate level. 

235.	He described in his witness statement how he became professionally involved with the Claimant,  

“From my day to day contact and passing conversation with Thomas, I was aware that he believed he was engaged in highly original and complex research, which was going to change the world.  .... I remember being asked to join the supervisory team that was responsible for Thomas’ Ph.D. . Dr Pervez asked me but I cannot remember when or why. I have seen Professor Bridge’s memorandum about Thomas dated 27th July 2001. This memorandum refers to a meeting on 23rd July 2001 between Thomas and Professor Bridge when it was suggested I join Thomas’ supervisory team. It is probable I was asked at some point before this meeting. When I was asked, I agreed although I was a bit concerned about becoming involved because I had heard from Dr Pervez that things were quite problematic. I agreed because I wanted to help out. I had a very rough idea about the sort of work Thomas was doing. I was already a Ph.D.  supervisor and felt I was qualified to provide guidance for and assessment of his work.”
 
236.	As to the issue of whether the supervisory team was appropriately qualified, he said,

“I understand Thomas claims no one at the SBU had sufficient technical knowledge to understand his Ph.D.  work. I disagree with this. When I found out the detail of Thomas’ work, I did not consider it to be technically beyond me. I understood the concepts he was working with.”

237.	As far as he knew, he had joined the supervisory team in July 2001.

“My understanding was that I was going to be 2nd Supervisor but would play an active part in assisting Dr Pervez who would be 1st Supervisor. I was not aware that Thomas was unhappy with this. Shortly after agreeing to become a member of the supervisory team, Professor Alford asked me to attend a ‘Research Progress Meeting’ between Thomas and his supervisory team. I have seen minutes and a transcript of this meeting, which show it took place on 1st August 2001. I do not remember having any formal meeting with Professor Alford prior to this meeting although we would probably have talked informally when the meeting was arranged.  The meeting was not a success. In my view Thomas was uncooperative. He seemed preoccupied by minor details and did not want to discuss his work. He was rude. I was shocked by his rude and arrogant manner towards senior colleagues. I told him I thought he was being unreasonable and rude but this had no effect.”
	
 “At some point ... I believe I was asked to write comments on Thomas’ 10 Month Report.  I cannot remember who asked me but it would have been Dr Pervez and/or Professor Alford. I was asked to assess the 10 Month Report because Thomas had not produced any written work since then. I produced my assessment sometime in August 2001 although by that stage I had had enough of Thomas. I concluded Thomas had chosen an interesting topic that addressed one of the main problems with IP Version4. However, it was a very ambitious project and I was concerned he would not have either the time or the capability to realise his aims. I should add that other people were working on the same problem and Thomas did not demonstrate any critical analysis as to why his approach was better. I had no difficulty whatsoever in understanding Thomas’ proposed research.” [Emphasis added.] 

238.	The Claimant’s transcript of the first meeting contains the following exchange at p. C 355:

TB: I know you have been called by BB to make sure that I don't pass my transfer report. That is what this is all about. 
NA: I can't imagine ... I simply do not understand why you would come to that conclusion.
TB: Ask BB a copy of this and I am sure you will come to the same conclusion.
NA: Well, I will. I will have a read through it. But I would be astonished ... I would be absolutely astonished ... you are just not ... it can't ... its just not possible.
NA: I am sure you will be very astonished when you read some of these things.
PX: No, no, no. In any circumstances if you fail your Ph.D.  project the University or the School will have nothing to gain. They will not gain anything.
TB: In this case, however, they have less to lose. Because, the University is at the moment liable, ...
PX: Yeah, because you are making trouble for everyone.
TB: Like I said, if you want to treat me like that then I would ask that you don't take part in these meeting and that you have no further involvement with this Ph.D.  project. That is just not a helpful attitude. 
PX: Well, it’s not us who is not very helpful. You see, we almost spend 1 hour in this meeting. I am trying to sort of evaluate your project, and you refuse to talk anything about your project.

239.	Dr Xiao attended the next supervisory meeting on 8th August 2001, when the Claimant objected to his presence.

“He made it quite clear he did not want me to be one of his supervisors. In my view he was quite offensive towards me. In the circumstances I left the meeting. I later told Dr Pervez that I considered Thomas to be impossible to supervise and I believed the situation was hopeless. I could not see how I could help move things forward unless Thomas changed his attitude radically. After that I was not involved in any further meetings. Thomas and I ignored each other when we met on a day to day basis.”

240.	That the Claimant at one point, late on, seemed to acknowledge Dr Xiao’s ability to understand his research is clear from his email to Dr Farwell dated 18th October 2001, where he said, “if Perry Xiao had experience of Ph.D.  supervision he might meet the requirements as primary supervisor.”

241.	Dr Xiao said that the outline of the Claimant’s proposed thesis was basically a table of contents with various chapter headings. It was difficult to see from this document what he was hoping to achieve in his Ph.D. thesis because it was so vague and brief. He produced it again following the RPM on 1st August 2001.

242.	Cross-examination.  Dr Xiao was cross-examined by Mr Bangert.  When it was put to him that he was part of a conspiracy against the Claimant, he said, “I did not conspire with anyone to get rid of the Claimant.  I was not involved in any way in such a thing.  I had very little to do with you.  Q. At paragraph 18 [in his witness statement] you say you were concerned because things were problematic: what problems were there?  A. The main problem was that your supervisor had left.  That is what I meant by “problematic.”  I was not going to be the main supervisor or officially the second supervisor -- that is why I did not come to you.  However I got quite involved in e-mails, memoranda and meetings.  Dr Pervez valued my technical contribution as I was teaching Internet technology at that time.  Dr Pervez did not say he had to check my references.  He and I were working in the same department.  He had only to look at my CV.  I had a lot of technical knowledge about Internet technology through teaching, though, not research.  Q.  You were not the first or second supervisor or the Director of Studies -- what was your formal position?  A.  I cannot remember. [Judge]: look at paragraph 20.  A.  It is such a long time ago -- yes it looks like I was to be second supervisor only assisting Dr Pervez.  Later on I knew Prof. Alford was involved.  I did not have a meeting with Prof. Alford before 1st August 2001.  I do not remember Mr Bangert saying I was not qualified, or raising any issue about my qualifications.  At the first meeting I thought Mr Bangert was happy for me to be there. I was not at the whole of the second meeting: I left because you [the Claimant] objected to my presence.  I do not remember you saying why you objected in detail. 

243.	Q. Look at C 396 -- a transcript of a covert recording of the meeting on 8 August 2001 

“TB: The first thing I would like to ask is why is Perry here. I sent him an email, which I copied to everyone else.
NA: Yes.
TB: So, I think I made my position reasonably clear.
NA: Well ... yes you did. Now, my concern here is that if you are going to request that Perry leave, I'm slightly unhappy about that simply because I think that Perry has some useful input in the sense that he is now ... he is involved in aspects of your project in the teaching labs. The network and so forth. So I think that at the moment it’s useful for him to be around.
TB: Well, due to what’s happened, however, which are not technical things but rather personal things, I feel it would not be appropriate. You were here at the meeting last week. So ... I would be willing to overlook what happened at the meeting last week, but, given that, what happened yesterday I cannot overlook.....
PX: Because I didn't return your computer.
TB: You haven't come to see me about this computer.....
NA: Wait a minute. We are here to discuss ... we are here to discuss the progress of your M. Phil.  transfer. 
TB: I have asked Perry to come and see me if he has any disagreement about this computer, he can come to see me privately.
NA: Right. So that is a completely different issue. [TB: Yes] So lets just leave that on one side.
TB: But Perry did make a large amount of criticism and abuse yesterday, which I feel is completely out of order. And until this is put right I feel that I can't have any association with Perry.” [Emphasis added.]
244.	It seemed to me that this part of the transcript was being put by the Claimant on a mistaken basis, as it showed that the objection was because of a disagreement between them personally (see italicised sections above) which had nothing to do with Dr Xiao’s qualifications for being a supervisor to the Claimant.  The witness’s answer, in any event, was this:  

“A. I would have been perfectly happy and qualified to be his second supervisor.  I do not agree that the Claimant had objections to me on technical grounds – the objection was only after the second meeting began and then because of personal reasons.  There was no objection at the first meeting.  The objection came after the first meeting.  Personal reasons arose after the first meeting.  .... I did not agree with his attitude at the first meeting, and that, I believe, was when he fell out with me. In the first meeting I expressed my disagreement with his attitude.  He only said that was a reason for not wanting me as a supervisor during the second meeting.”

245.	Dr Xiao eventually withdrew from this meeting.  Prof. Alford’s Olympian patience with the Claimant, and the tone and content of the meeting as a whole are reflected in the following extract, which, in respect of the Claimant’s attention to matters of procedure, is not untypical of the many other transcripts of covertly recorded conversations. 

TB[the Claimant]: We can see reasonably quickly that just Perry [Dr Xiao] won't be able to provide useful input.
NA [Prof. Alford] : I think he will. Ok. ... I'm going on the assumption that Perry is going to be able to provide useful input. He is going to be able to explain certain aspects of the project, certainly to me, which I would find useful. Now ... bear with us while we just get through this part here. Ok. The issue between you and Perry, that is a separate issue as far as I am concerned, which has nothing to do with the Ph.D. .
TB: We can see immediately Perry introduces extraneous topics, personal topics, into the meeting. I'm not starting anything, I'm just saying Perry’s presence here at this time would not be appropriate. Due to what has happened.
NA: No. I want Perry to stay around for a little time. Ok.
TB: I'm afraid I won't be able to attend the meeting if Perry is here.
NA: Really?
TB: I have the right, given reasonable grounds, to refuse supervision by a member of staff. Now, here I am exercising that right. And I am informing both Perry and the rest of the supervisory team that I feel Perry would not be appropriate ... due to reasonable grounds. I am making a reasonable request, that Perry not have any further involvement with my Ph.D.  and therefore he should not be present at this meeting.
NA: Let me just ask, do you want to discuss the issue between you and Perry, is that what you want to discuss.
TB: I have invited Perry to come and speak to me privately if he has any issues such as whether or not I have returned his lecture notes, or if I have been 'terminated' or not, or where this term comes from. All of these issues I am willing to discuss them in private. Or in a separate meeting. If we have a separate meeting we can sit down and discuss all these issues. [NA: Right.] Why Perry has been mounting all this criticism and abuse, I don't know why. Personally we have gotten along quite well in the past, but suddenly he is presenting me with this criticism and abuse, which I don't accept. Now, if we want to have a meeting to resolve that [NA: that would be a separate meeting] then if it’s resolved then I might reconsider. But at this point I don't see that Perry can have any involvement in this Ph.D. .
NA: Let me get this absolutely right, if I am going to be chairing the meeting, then the agenda which is down here, which is material for M. Phil. transfer, advice from supervisor and so on, are we going to take this or not.
TB: Sure.
NA: Ok. Lets do that now then.
TB: I am saying Perry's presence here is not appropriate.
NA: If Perry is here, are you going to attend the meeting.
TB: I will have to ask that the meeting will be ended. Because Perry's presence here is not appropriate and that being the case I am unwilling to have the meeting continue.
NA: Well, I'm not going to end the meeting. So what you want to do now.
TB: If you insist that Perry remains here then I will have to ask that the meeting be ended.
NA: Well, you can ask but I'm not ending it.
TB: Which is reasonable request.
NA: But I'm not ending the meeting. I want to get this over and done with. We have got till 12 o'clock when the meeting will finish. And if we can discuss anything useful about your work then I think we should because I think we are running out of time.
TB: We can't discuss anything relevant to my work in Perry's presence since his presence is not appropriate. Which I made clear in this email.
NA: Well, yeah, but ...
TB: Which is my right and I am exercising that right. Based on reasonable grounds.
NA: What you see as reasonable grounds. I don't see that as reasonable grounds. And what I want to do is discuss ..., what I want to do is I want to have the meeting. Thats what I want to do. I want to discuss how you are going to get your M. Phil.  transfer. That’s all I want to do.
TB: We can't have a meeting with members of staff who are not appropriate.
NA: You are going to be stepping on dangerous grounds if you are kicking into touch all of these supervisors.
TB: If you have asked inappropriate members of staff to be present then I am afraid that is not be appropriate and I can't go along with that.
NA: But, its not that I've asked. We have agreed at the last meeting that all of us would have a meeting today. And thats what I want to happen. Suddenly ... I come in this morning and I see an email from you. There is no possibility of taking action from this morning till now. So, you know, its impossible for me to take the action. We can discuss this in any other business. Ok. Thats where it should be discussed.
TB: Because I have the right to say ... now I don't have to give a lot of notice, there is no protocol for this, if I feel that Perry has done something inappropriate, that is wrong, then those are reasonable grounds to say that I would not want Perry to have any further involvement with this Ph.D. . Now, I would query Perry why he would insist to be here. If I was supervising somebody and they came and told me that 'I don't want you to be my supervisor any longer because I feel that you have done something inappropriate', then I would say 'ok, please find someone else'. Now, I would ask Perry, why he would insist to be here.
PX [Dr Xiao]: I don't insist to be here.
NA: Because I have asked him to be here.
TB: So you called him up this morning and told him please ...
NA: No! At the last meeting we agreed that he would be here.
PX: It was the agenda of the last meeting.
TB: I have written you an email in the interim asking you ...
PX: Who do you think you are!
TB: 'who do I think I am'?
PX: You are not a formal member of staff. You don't have right to say who can be the chair and who cannot be the chair. You don't have the right to say what the meeting agenda should be and what the agenda shouldn't be. Its the Chair's decision, and it is the Chair's decision who should come to the meeting and who shouldn't come to the meeting.
TB: Unfortunately, you don't address the point here. That is, the University cannot force anyone to supervise. The University needs my agreement. And I do not give my agreement, I make that clear here. Even M. Sc.  project students have the right to say that 'I don't want to be supervised any longer by this person'.
NA: Wait a minute. Under those circumstances I think ... I think maybe we should agree to let Perry go. That is the first thing. I think that Perry won't be too disenchanted with that. But I think that its going to cause a problem for you Thomas. Now we are going to accede to your request. He doesn't have to be a part of this meeting any longer. But I think that you are causing a problem for yourself and I think that ... because I don't think thats going to be a very helpful exercise. So, Perry you can go. Ok.
AP[Dr Pervez] : Ok.
TB: Thank you.
[PX leaves, 12.5min]
...
TB: You have agreed as Chair to take minutes, so I would now insist that minutes be taken. Anjum is unwilling to take minutes.
NA: Anjum is going to take the minutes and he is going to write down what we agree upon. Now if you want to do this Thomas then you can walk out now, because that is what we are going to do now. Honestly. Ok. Now make your mind up. If you want us to help you get through this M. Phil.  transfer try to be reasonable, try not to do this sort of thing. Because its testing our patience. It’s a waste of time for you. It’s a total waste of time.
TB: My time has been wasted so far due to things not being minuted, due to claims and counter claims about what was said and what was not said. 
.... 
NA: Listen, I am the Chair. Now, the material for the M. Phil.  transfer. How are we going to decide this. Now you have sent to me the contents and that is helpful. I think that we can certainly minute that we have the contents of Thomas' thesis. Which is helpful. I have also printed out the 10 month report. In here I find that ... the 10 month report and the 2 papers, 'Source routing over the wide area network' and 'A switched IP protocol' that you wrote with Xiahong. I think that is also helpful and these are positive points. The issue now is how much extra we need to include for an M. Phil.  transfer. And so I guess the question ... I mean one thing I would say is that at the end of your email here ... 'an acceptable level of success', 'As it stands, in my view, I have a reasonable chance of completing the work'. Well, I found that quite encouraging. Those are certainly points that you have made before. So, if we look down here at the contents, the big issue is what do you have on paper. Ok. Material for the M. Phil.  transfer. This material is useful for the M. Phil.  transfer. But the big issue is what do you think we have in here that makes up the M. Phil.  transfer report itself. In other words how much material do you have which can go to make up the report. You have the 10 month report and actually that is quite a good start.
TB: I have a number of papers.
NA: Well that is not going to be ... the information might go into the M. Phil.  transfer report but the papers as they stand won't. Unless you want to include them as appendices.
TB: Well, the material from these papers would to a greater degree make up the M. Phil.  transfer report.
NA: Ok. Fine.
TB: If you could minute that please.
NA: No, no, hang on, wait a minute, as the chair ...
TB: Under the rules I request that this be minuted.
NA: Thomas, Thomas ... I am running the meeting.
TB: I have the right to request that things are minuted. That was what was agreed.
NA: No you don't have the right. I'm going to run the meeting as I wish to run it.
TB: If we go back on what was agreed, then we have to go back and start again.”

Alan Nigrin

246.	Mr Nigrin has been employed by the SBU for about 30 years. He is the Senior Technician in the Department. He has a degree in Electrical & Electronic Engineering. As senior technician in the Department’s teaching laboratory it is his responsibility to run and administer the laboratory and to provide technical support to students and staff. 

247.	He became aware of Mr Bangert in 1998 when he was an M. Sc.  student. When the Claimant became a research student in 1999 he began to have more direct contact with him, as he was responsible for providing technical support to the research students. The research students were very few in number – only four or so, including Mr Bangert.

248.	He began to experience problems with the setting up of the network, which had been agreed by Dr Pervez.

“I was supposed to help him with the set up of this network but he provided me with no plans and gave me no information on what he intended to do or was doing and kept me in the dark the whole time. Eventually he was left to do it himself. This was not because I did not wish to be involved but because he effectively excluded me by not communicating essential information to me. We provided him with, or assisted him in obtaining, all the materials required to build the network.”

249.	Problems began to develop, in Mr Nigrin’s view, because the Claimant treated the network as his private property, and felt he could do as he wished with it, without consultation. He disregarded normal laboratory practice and procedures. In particular Mr Nigrin found that the Claimant was bringing in and using his own computer parts in University computers without approval, permission or informing anyone. He was leaving the laboratory  unlocked when it was unattended and as a consequence compromising the laboratory  security and risking the loss of computer parts and other equipment.  He was moving equipment and destroying previously installed operating systems, data and settings used for teaching purposes without obtaining permission to do so, without prior warning and without informing anyone.  He did not involve the technical staff with the administration of the network.  Nor did he acknowledge that Mr Nigrin was in charge of, and responsible for, the organisation and running of the laboratory.
 
250.	Mr Nigrin said in his witness statement that the underlying problem seemed to be Mr Bangert’s attitude, in that he appeared to believe he was in charge and that the technicians were his subordinates who, he believed, should be at his beck and call, despite the fact that he had no official authority or status within the laboratory. In any event, the relationship between the technical staff and academics was not one of master and servant but of co-operating colleagues. He was contemptuous and overbearing in his attitude to Mr Nigrin and other technicians. He would not listen to other people’s point of view and was completely uncompromising. 

251.	In my judgment, each of these points is illustrated by a previously undisclosed covert recording which the Claimant made of a discussion with Mr Nigrin, which he was permitted to play during Mr Nigrin’s cross-examination, to which I will make more reference below when I deal with that.. It demonstrates exactly what Mr Nigrin says.

252.	In his witness statement, Mr Nigrin said that although the idea had been that staff and students would use the network for teaching purposes, this was not possible because Mr Bangert refused to disclose how he had set it up and how it worked. Without this knowledge it was impossible to use and maintain it. The network could not be used unless he was present: if the server had gone down the laboratory would have been paralysed (because the computers that formed the network would have been inoperable) and since the technical staff would not have been in a position to get it up and running again, classes would have had to be terminated causing unnecessary disruption. As a result, a meeting was held between Dr Pervez, Dr Xiao, Dr Peng, Mr Bangert and Mr Nigrin. Everyone wanted him to produce a manual explaining how the network worked. Mr Bangert said he wanted to organise training sessions and made it clear he regarded the meeting that was convened for him to explain how the network worked as the first of many training sessions.

253.	The computer apparatus he was using was physically side by side with other lab equipment. It did not stand alone. The computers that formed the network were part of the teaching laboratory. They were needed to teach other units and run other software. Despite this Mr Bangert insisted that no-one should touch the network computers unless he was present because they would compromise “his” network. They tried, Mr Nigrin said, to leave the network alone for the sake of a quiet life. However, this proved impractical, and the day-to-day work of the laboratory was being affected. In the end they spent about £1,000 on new hard drives for the computers in the network. This meant that when the computers were needed for laboratory work and teaching they would remove the Claimant’s hard drives and use the new ones. The idea was that the computers could then be used without any danger of interfering with the network. This was extremely inconvenient and a significant imposition on the technicians trying to run the laboratory, but was done to accommodate Mr Bangert. 

254.	The Claimant’s habit of bringing his own equipment into the laboratory was also a problem. He would install this equipment in the laboratory computers or use it in conjunction with the computers. He would do this without telling anyone what he was doing. On one occasion this resulted in three hard disc drives being damaged. Following an incident on or around 4th July 2001, when he destroyed data, Mr Nigrin locked the computers so that the Claimant  could not install his own equipment without permission.

255.	Mr Bangert would frequently accuse technicians of moving things and damaging his equipment. He even suggested deliberate attempts were being made by Mr Nigrin and others to sabotage his work. This, Mr Nigrin said in his witness statement, was both untrue and ridiculous. An inordinate amount of time was spent arguing with him, which would result in work grinding to a halt. He appeared to be obsessed with “his network” and being in charge. On the other hand, “in fairness to him,” Mr Nigrin said, “he was helpful in that he was always willing to sort things out when the network had problems but he would not let anyone know how he did this. He appeared to like being in control.”

256.	At the meeting on 13th July 2001 with Professor Alford and Mr Bangert (which the Claimant covertly recorded) it was agreed that Mr Bangert should make requests of the technicians through Professor Alford in order to avoid any misunderstanding or miscommunication.

“Unfortunately Mr Bangert was unable to stick to this agreement. ... I did have arguments with Mr Bangert. On occasion I feel he was deliberately trying to provoke me.”

An example of this, Mr Nigrin said in his witness statement, was his behaviour during the meeting on 13th July 2001. In my judgment Mr Nigrin is quite right in selecting that as an example.  That was how it appeared to Prof. Alford, and when invited to consider it in cross-examination, Prof. Alford said he now realised that the Claimant had indeed been trying deliberately to provoke Mr Nigrin.  A further example is a meeting covertly recorded in a previously-undisclosed tape, which I shall deal with in detail below.

257.	Mr Nigrin said that after making complaints to Professor Alford and to Dr Pervez about Mr Bangert’s conduct, he finally decided in July 2001, to send a memorandum to the Head of School, Professor Bridge. He said that he could not remember whether anyone else had asked him to write, but he was certainly not ordered to write it. 

“It could well have been triggered by me hearing about other staff members making complaints about Mr Bangert and writing to Professor Bridge. Therefore I decided to make Professor Bridge aware of my concerns, the difficult situation that I was in ... together with the problems I was experiencing.”

258.	He became aware that Professor Bridge took a decision to take disciplinary action against Mr Bangert based on the complaints that he had received from numerous members of staff, himself included.

259.	On 11th October 2001, Mr Bangert had made a formal complaint against Dr Pervez and himself. His response to this complaint is dated 24th October 2001. Mr Bangert’s complaint was dismissed by Professor Bridge on 30th October 2001, who gave his reasons in a letter to the Claimant dated 30 October 2001 as follows: 

“My decision is to dismiss your complaint.  Mr Nigrin repudiates all the allegations that you have made and gives a very different version of events including some serious counter allegations.   There is no independent written evidence presented on either side, but I find Mr Nigrin's account much more realistic than yours.  Dr Pervez denies collusion with Mr Nigrin and gives a very different version of events to yours. There is no independent written evidence presented on either side but I find Dr Pervez's account much more realistic than yours.  ….Your access to the teaching laboratories for research purposes has to be tempered by the teaching priorities, and you have no right to issue instructions to a technician. ….  Much of the dialogue that you have written down, if true, comes in the category of minor or occasional lapses of good manners often with 'each side giving as good as it gets' such as might arise in the 'heat of the moment'. …
“Much of your report contains what purports to be a word for word record of what has said on many occasions over a long period of time. The accuracy and context of the wording is open to question unless it was the result of an audio recording, which I would regard as inadmissible evidence. Mr Nigrin alleges that you use a recording device. There is no direct evidence of this but it is known that you have asked Professor Alford, in one meeting, if he minded you taking a recording. …
“It is true that your Ph.D.  studies are not progressing at all. But these are more straightforward reasons for this already discussed elsewhere under the current Disciplinary Investigation. But Dr Pervez has re‑presented this evidence under my present investigation. …. you continuously refuse to provide your supervisory team with the information needed to monitor your progress and advise thereon;  you have failed to act on any of the advice presented to you by the reviewer of your 10 monthly report; the most important item  ...  is that you have failed to carry out any appropriate and thorough literature record to provide evidence that your research ideas are original …  there is no evidence that the material presented to date is appropriate for Ph.D.  studies. All your supervisors including the external advisor present evidence that you have been unacceptably rude in all dealings that you have had with them.  
“Whilst there is much prior documentary evidence form many sources about your poor behaviour in dealings with many people, Mr Nigrin and Dr Pervez are staff members of long service against which [sic] there have been no previous written complaints.”
260.	That the Claimant had been using a recording device to make “...what purports to be a word for word record of what has said on many occasions over a long period of time…” is now obvious.  Yet he expressly said in the written complaint dated 10 October that, in respect, for example, of a conversation on 26th September at 5,10 p.m:

“I was at my desk & took notes on the conversation. I have reconstructed the conversation from those notes. Specific abuse is precisely as stated, other material is reconstructed (reasonably accurately) from memory...” 

261.	In cross-examination, the Claimant first asked Mr Nigrin if he remembered another conversation in which Mr Nigrin said he had been instructed to the Claimant’s network - around the end of June or early July 2001. “A.  We did talk about dismantling the network. I was telling him that if we could not operate it, the eventuality will be that it will be dismantled.  But it would not be my decision without consultation with colleagues and  Dr  Pervez and other academics.  If we could not use it without you there was no point in having it.  No one else used it. [Judge]: what equipment was involved?  A.   it started with 3 or 4 computers, but eventually all 10 computers were taken over by the Claimant.  You [the Claimant] never included me in the equation so I left it to you to build the network.  Q. It is not true that no one else used it?  A.  It was only used by students who you taught to use it.  No other technical staff or academic staff used it.  Q.  At one point you [i.e. Mr Nigrin] said, ‘Wait a minute I want to tell you something – I’ve been ordered to dismantle the network but I’m not going to comply with that 100%.’ A.  It would not be a matter for me.  Q.  But did you say that?  A.  No I do not remember that.  I do not think I would have said such a thing.  

262.	Q.  You went on to say, in an emotional speech, “I’ve being asked to do many things like that”? [The Claimant asked Mr Nigrin to look at a memorandum at p. C 120. - 

[Dr Pervez to the Claimant]  “Outcomes of the meeting 19 June - After a long discussion it was decided that the following actions must be taken: 1. All the computers acquired by Mr Bangert from LRC should be housed in Mr Bangert's research area for his exclusive use, enabling him to pursue his research without any hindrance. 2. Any piece of equipment which is the personal property of Mr Bangert must be removed from the teaching laboratory equipment and be returned to Mr Bangert immediately. 3. All network cards and hard disks acquired by Mr Bangert from the LRC should be returned to him as soon as practically possible. However, if Mr Bangert needs any of this equipment urgently then this action should be taken immediately.”]  

A.  But this has got nothing to do with your [i.e. the Claimant’s] network. Q.  You said you did not really want to do much harm to my Ph.D. work, so you weren’t going to do it too quickly?  A.  There are two different sets of computers.  He is being manipulative at the moment -- pulling the wool -- and trying to confuse the issue:  p. 120 refers to (1) LRC computers which we collected and the others (2) are the ones of which the network is composed.   Q.  You said about number two that you did not want to comply with the instruction, although ordered to act on it, because it would do irreparable damage to my Ph.D.?  A.  Oh! it is coming back what this is about.  Mr Bangert put personal equipment into his network.  Complying with this request would mean stopping his network because Mr Bangert had a lot of equipment which he put into his network belonging to the teaching laboratory.  Therefore if I removed those it would inadvertently have stopped his network. Q. You go on to say that the “higher ups”(Dr  Pervez and Prof. Bridge) wanted you to do this knowingly to destroy my network, but you were a defender of truth and justice and would go along with the higher ups only to a certain point, but not to irreparably damaging Ph.D. work.  A.  I did try to do my best not to impede or affect your work.  But I do not remember any of that the way he has put it.  When the memorandum at p. 120 was given to me I had to explain to Dr Pervez that inevitably your practical work might suffer.  If I do not comply with instructions I always go back and tell them why.  Sometimes they do not realise -- I said if I do this then his practical work might suffer -- but if they still wanted me to I would be happy to carry on.  Q.  Prof. Alford also asked you?  A.  Yes.  Q.  So why did you not do it?  A.  Because by then they knew the reasons. They did not ask me to do it after they knew the reasons.  I did return some part of the equipment to them.  [Judge]: when did you see p. 120?  A. I did not actually see this document at this time: it was not addressed to me, so no.”

263.	At this point Mr Hamilton intervened to enquire whether it was the Claimant's case that as early as 20 June 2001 Prof. Alford, Dr Pervez, and others had already formed a conspiracy against him.  Mr Bangert said, “yes it is: the memorandum at p. 120 amounted to a declaration of war and the fighting was going to begin.” Q. [to Mr Nigrin] What do you say?  A.  I’ve always been supportive of Mr Bangert.  I did not say ‘the fighting is about to begin and I will give you a friendly bit of advice.’

264.	It was then that the Claimant asked to cross-examine Mr Nigrin in respect of a tape recording which had not previously been disclosed.  It was a recording, again made surreptitiously by him, of a conversation which he had had with Mr Nigrin.  Mr Hamilton objected, as he had absolutely no opportunity to consider the content of this tape recording.  The hearing was adjourned to enable both Mr Hamilton and those instructing him to listen to the tape recording and also for Mr Nigrin to be able to listen to it before answering any questions.  When they had had the opportunity to listen to the tape, Mr Hamilton did not object to the evidence being heard de bene esse in the first instance, and subsequently to its being accepted as admissible evidence: it became exhibit C 1.

265.	Mr Nigrin said, having listened to the tape that there were a couple of points at which he thought there had been editing, but that otherwise it seemed authentic.  In the recording Mr Nigrin is heard to say to the Claimant that the Claimant has to do things in the correct way.  He, Mr Nigrin, has been instructed to ensure university rules and procedures are followed.  The Claimant had brought his own equipment into the laboratory which was not authorised.  If he wanted to bring apparatus in, he had to have it authorised.  At one point the Claimant asked him how he knew ‘things which had been said in private meetings’ and Mr Nigrin replied that he was not going to say anything in answer to that question.  ‘You have to follow the rules like everyone else.’  Mr Nigrin pointed out that the Claimant was not a member of the ‘hierarchy’ and that he was a student and ‘you will be a student until you complete your Doctorate.’  He then said, ‘it does not matter what our differences are -- I want you to get your Ph.D.’ [Emphasis added.]

266.	He said that references to “Human Resources” by him were probably a slip of the tongue “I don’t know what it means – you get people so excited”  At one point in this tape Mr Nigrin said to the Claimant “you have been proved a liar” and the Claimant therefore asked, “Q.  What did you mean by that?  A.  You have told me a lot of lies in the past.”  

267.	As to the suggestion that Mr Nigrin was saying he was going to destroy the Claimant's network, Mr Nigrin said “it is nonsense to suggest that I was saying I was going to destroy your network.  You are twisting it.  You are a good twister.  I agree I was saying that if you say so I would take all the cards etc from the network -- they are yours -- and that would have destroyed your network.  When I said, ‘I have had those directives -- all official now -- I have been asked to dismantle these things and I haven’t...,’ the reason was that Prof. Alford and  Dr  Pervez (in the memorandum at p. 120) did not realise that if I did return all your things, [as you were asking, and as they at your request were instructing me,] that would have destroyed the network and that would have interfered with your work.  I do not think they realised how much of your stuff was installed in the computers.  They gave a directive to return your bits and pieces without realising there were some of them in the computers which (if they were in fact removed) would interfere with your network. So I told them so. C 120 was not copied to me.  The directive was given verbally” [i.e. orally.]

268.	This cross-examination did not, it seemed to me, assist the Claimant.  Alan Nigrin did not follow the oral directions given following the memorandum at p. 120, because if he had done so such removal of the Claimant's equipment, unknown to Prof. Alford and  Dr  Pervez (who thought that that was what the Claimant was asking them to authorise,) would have destroyed some of the Claimant's work.  He therefore deliberately did not do so, because he realised it would harm the Claimant's work, and later explained to  Dr  Pervez and Prof. Alford why he was not following their instructions.

269.	Mr Hamilton submitted that the Claimant’s cross-examination of Alan Nigrin, including the covert recording he insisted on playing to the Court, was bizarre.  It centred on an incident in June 2001, where it was alleged Mr. Nigrin went out of his way to ensure the Claimant’s research work was not damaged or compromised. It is unlikely Mr. Nigrin would have acted in this way if he were engaged in trying to prevent the Claimant progressing with his research.”  I agree with Mr Hamilton.  

270.	It also seemed to me that some positive inference could be drawn from Mr Nigrin’s observations set out above, when he said the Claimant was not a member of the “hierarchy” and that he was a student, and “you will be a student until you complete your doctorate. It does not matter what our differences are -- I want you to get your Ph.D.” These remarks are in my judgment entirely credible, and amount to compelling evidence showing that Mr Nigrin was not guilty of any bad faith towards the Claimant.  Until the Claimant insisted upon this evidence being produced, and this covert tape recording being played, there was no specific illustration of Mr Nigrin’s patience and of his true attitude.  Inadvertently, the Claimant provided it.       

271.	Otherwise, it seemed to me that the content of this tape took the substance of the matters already referred to in Mr Nigrin's evidence no further.  The attitude shown by Mr Nigrin, who had no idea that he was being tape-recorded, far from being confrontational,  obstructive or difficult, seemed to me to be constructive, straightforward, sensible and, so far as he could be, quite sympathetic to the Claimant.  The Claimant’s attitude on the other hand gave the impression to me (hearing this undisclosed tape for the first time when it was played in court) that he was being unreasonable with Mr Nigrin, and showed him to be uncooperative, obstinate, and obsessed with status.

272.	At the conclusion of his evidence I asked Mr Nigrin what he had to say about any knowledge of an agreement to get rid of the Claimant?  “A. I was never party to any agreement to get rid of Mr Bangert and I was never aware of anyone else been party to such an agreement.”  I accept this evidence as truthful.

Prof. Bryan Bridge  

273.	Professor Bryan Bridge has a number of degrees and professional qualifications include the degree of Doctor of Science. He joined SBU in 1989 as Head of the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering and Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Subsequently he became Head of School.  He retired from full time employment with SBU on July 31st 2006.  During the time Mr. Bangert was at SBU, as Head of School he had a managerial role and in the normal course of events he had no reason to come into contact with the Claimant or any other research student.

274.	He first became aware of Mr. Bangert because of concerns raised by senior staff about his conduct as an Hourly Paid Lecturer teaching the Introduction to Software Course. It is not unusual for research students to do this sort of work.  A Principal Lecturer in the School took the view that Mr. Bangert should be removed as course lecturer because he was teaching at an inappropriately complex level and not following the Unit Guide.

275.	Prof. Bridge called a meeting between Mr. Bangert, a Dr. Kaye, and Dr. Protheroe. Mr. Bangert said he was trying out some new teaching methods, which he believed would improve the course. He appeared enthusiastic and plausible. Prof. Bridge  said in his witness statement

“I admit I was rather sympathetic to a person who seemed keen and wanted to try out new ideas, especially as I regard enthusiasm as a most important requirement for teaching I wanted to give him some latitude. I suggested a compromise whereby Mr. Bangert was permitted to pursue his ideas but on the basis that he followed the guidance of senior colleagues and adhered to the essential elements of the Unit Guide.”

276.	However, Mr. Bangert’s claim that Prof. Bridge “found against” Dr. Protheroe at this meeting and that this resulted in Dr. Protheroe leaving the School is untrue. Firstly, Prof. Bridge said he did not “find against” Dr Protheroe. Secondly, the reason Dr. Protheroe left the Department was because he applied for and obtained a more senior position in another Department. 

277.	It is quite possible, Prof. Bridge said, that he asked Dr. Protheroe to attend the Claimant’s lectures because he became aware of further problems and complaints from students, and to try and ensure Mr. Bangert’s teaching was on track.  He said in his witness statement: 

“I understand Mr. Bangert has claimed that the reason I asked Dr. Protheroe to attend his teaching sessions was because I wanted Dr. Protheroe to act as his ‘teaching assistant.’ This suggestion is so divorced from reality that I cannot believe he really thinks it is true. I would never instruct a senior academic to act in a subordinate capacity to a research student employed as an HPL teaching a part time course.

278.	On 29th November 2000, Prof. Bridge was copied in on an email from Mr. Bangert to Dr. Protheroe accusing him of “workplace harassment” and purporting to raise a formal complaint against him. Prof. Bridge did not take any action in respect of this complaint, as it was not sent directly to him and he did not consider that it was in proper form. Initially Mr. Bangert did not follow up on this complaint and Prof. Bridge believed he had decided not to pursue it.

279.	On 26th January 2001, Prof. Bridge received an email from Mr. Bangert with a lengthy attachment. It is clear from the contents of this email that the Claimant was upset because he had learned he was not being employed as an HPL to teach the 2nd semester [i.e. the second term] of the Introduction to Software Course. He stated he wanted to pursue his complaint against Dr. Protheroe. Once again, Prof. Bridge decided not to take action in respect of this complaint. The reason for this was that in his experience people often fired off emails like this in the heat of the moment, which they later regretted or did not follow through, when things had calmed down. The complaint was not in the proper form and Prof. Bridge  decided to see if Mr. Bangert followed it up or whether it just ‘fizzled out,’ as these things usually did.  

280.	Once it became clear the grievance procedure had been formally invoked against Dr Protheroe by the Claimant, Prof. Bridge decided to make some enquiries to try and find out how things had ended up like this. As a result of these enquiries, Prof. Bridge became aware that a number of people had problems with Mr. Bangert and there were also problems with his research work.  Dr. Pervez said he was not making progress with his research work and was not listening to anyone. 

281.	Prof. Bridge  said in his witness statement that he could not remember having anything to do with Mr. Bangert’s research work prior to this, although it was likely he would have been consulted when Dr. Peng left the University and Dr. Pervez took over as Mr. Bangert’s 1st Supervisor. He was certainly unaware of any problems with his research work before this.

282.	He received a number of memoranda about the Claimant’s behaviour from staff. These are collected together in the Claimant’s digital bundle. They are statements of the personal experiences and opinions of his colleagues.  The Claimant has characterised this as “digging for dirt.” I did not view it in that way at all.  It seemed to me that Prof. Bridge was doing no more than taking soundings amongst all the staff who had personal experience of the Claimant. Such a survey might have shown that the particular problem was of an isolated nature, and that the Claimant was in all other respects a diligent and reasonable member of the university who was fulfilling his duties as such without creating any cause for complaint. Had that been the outcome, it is difficult to imagine that the Claimant would have had any complaint. The fact that the survey did not result in such an outcome is not evidence that it was maliciously inspired by Prof. Bridge

283.	He said that he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of what Dr. Pervez had said in his email to Professor Ian Marshall dated 18th July 2001 about how he, Prof. Bridge, became “involved in the problems people were having with Mr. Bangert” (this email is set out in full above in the section dealing with undisputed matters of history.).

284.	On 23rd July 2001, he said that he had called Mr. Bangert in for a meeting.

“I went through all the problems that had been reported to me relating both to his teaching and his research work. I asked Dr. Pervez and Professor Alford to attend part of the meeting, in the hope we could reach some agreement that would enable him to progress his research work.  The point of the meeting was to give him a chance to respond to criticism and try and find a constructive way forward.  I note in my memorandum dated 27th July 2001, setting out the conclusions I had reached following our meeting, I do refer to more than one meeting with him  As stated in my memorandum dated 27th July 2001, at the meeting it was agreed that Dr. Perry Xiao would join Mr. Bangert’s supervisory team. It was also agreed Mr. Bangert would attend regular meetings with his supervisory team. I cannot recall how the decision was made to choose Dr. Xiao but he was a natural choice given his field of work. I am certain that at the meeting Mr. Bangert agreed both to Dr. Xiao joining the supervisory team and to attending progress meetings. He was also told to see Professor Bob Imhof who, under the School’s written management procedures was responsible for dealing with problems research students may be experiencing.”

285.	Following their meeting the Claimant sent Prof. Bridge a number of emails (three on 25th July 2001 and one on 26th July 2001), making it clear he did not accept any of the criticisms made about him. Prof. Bridge was also made aware that the Claimant was refusing to sign the documentation necessary for Dr. Xiao formally to join his supervisory team. 

“In view of this attitude it is highly likely I took the view I was unable to do any more and the matter now had to be referred to higher authority. If Mr Bangert had responded in a constructive manner to the discussion we had had on 23rd July 2001 it is likely that I would have deferred the referral of his case to Dr. Farwell. In light of Mr Bangert’s attitude on 27th July 2001, I sent a memorandum to Dr. Farwell for her consideration.”

286.	 Prof. Bridge said he had a very clear recollection of a further meeting he had with Mr. Bangert, shortly after he had referred the matter to Dr. Farwell. He remembered the meeting because it was so odd:  

“Mr. Bangert came to see me and said that as I was old and due to retire, I should be training someone to be my successor. He suggested he should be that person and that I should make him Assistant Head of School. He appeared to be putting this forward as a serious suggestion and as a way of sorting out what he perceived as the School’s problems.”
287.	In August 2001, Prof. Bridge received a letter from the EPSRC dated 18th August 2001, enquiring about the supervision of Mr. Bangert’s research. He replied on 12th September 2001. In this letter, he said, he had to accept he made an error in that he had referred to Dr. Xiao replacing Dr. Peng as 1st Supervisor when in fact Dr. Pervez replaced Dr. Peng as 1st Supervisor and Dr. Xiao came in as 2nd Supervisor. He assumed that EPSRC were aware that Mr. Bangert was refusing to accept Dr. Xiao or any of his supervisory team.

288.	On 14th August 2001, he held a hearing relating to Mr. Bangert’s formal complaint against Dr. Protheroe. This hearing was Mr. Bangert’s opportunity to put his case and produce his evidence. A separate hearing would then be arranged for Dr. Protheroe to do the same, which took place on 12th September 2001.  

289.	On 26th September 2001, he handed down his written decision in respect of Mr. Bangert’s complaint against Dr. Protheroe, concluding that the allegations were unfounded. Mr. Bangert appealed to Professor Clare against that decision. His appeal was dismissed on 15th October 2001. 

290.	On 27th September 2001 Mr. Bangert lodged formal complaints with Prof. Bridge against Alan Nigrin and Dr. Pervez. Prof. Bridge received formal responses from Mr. Nigrin and Dr. Pervez to the allegations he made. Prof. Bridge dismissed Mr. Bangert’s complaints without a hearing as he concluded he had no reasonable prospect of substantiating his complaints. His written decision dated 30th October 2001 sets out the reasons for his decision.

291.	 Sometime in September 2001 he became aware of an article Mr. Bangert had published on the Telecom Group Website about the September 11th terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre. Given the nature of its content (it argued that the perpetrators of this attack might be properly regarded as heroes), it seemed to him to be totally inappropriate to publish this sort of material on a website associated with SBU and he reported the matter to Professor Clare and referred the matter to Dr. Farwell to see if she considered that disciplinary action was justified. He would have referred this matter to Dr. Farwell whether or not Mr. Bangert was subject to ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

292.	In late September Professor Alford made Prof. Bridge  aware that he and Dr. Pervez had suspended Mr. Bangert’s Research Progress Meetings because of Mr. Bangert’s bad attitude and unacceptable rudeness. He asked Professor Alford to provide Dr. Farwell with a written note about this. He did this in a note dated 1st October 2001.

293.	 Regarding the complaint by the Claimant dated 11th October 2001 against Prof. Bridge, himself, he said “I have no recollection of this complaint. I was never required to respond to this complaint. I assume it lapsed when he was expelled from SBU in November 2001.”

294.	 Cross-examined, he said, he could not remember even roughly when he decided to end the Claimant’s employment as an hourly paid lecturer.  However, with an hourly paid lecturer is not a question of terminating the employment it was simply not renewing it.  “I recall that I did not want you to be re-engaged.”

295.	It was suggested by the Claimant that at some point “somebody decided the Claimant’s Ph.D. studies should be terminated.”  Prof. Bridge replied “you are using the wrong words.  You left the university because an investigation by the Dean of Academic Affairs.  Disciplinary action is for the Dean, not for heads of School.  I was the head of School.  The investigation at the Dean's level arose as a result of correspondence I sent to the Dean because of the circumstances in the Department which had got out of my management control.  I did not want the Ph.D. terminated.  If you look at C241 -- the letter to the Dean -- you will note on the last page (247) my constructive advice to the Claimant is not consistent with my seeking termination of the Ph.D. studies.

296.	 “Q.  What was your intention?  A.  To try to rectify the situation at the school which had gone out of control because of interaction between yourself and staff.  It was that which had got out of control and serious disruption occurred.  I completely stand by the second paragraph at p. 241.” (viz. ‘The informal processes that I have followed are well and truly exhausted.’)

297.	The Claimant asked him about numbered paragraph 18 in the memorandum of 27 July, at p. 246 bundle C.  This reads,
 
“In an e-mail to me you have written an account of the meeting ... with which I totally disagree.  This gives me first-hand evidence about the way you distort what staff have said to you in other meetings.  In our last meeting I raised two matters separately.  One concerned your conduct as a part-time teaching staff member ... the second matter was the progress in your research and for this part Prof. Alford and Dr  Pervez joined the meeting.  Here, also as documented above, the position is that it is very difficult for them, at present, to assess your research progress because of the totally insufficient information you give them, especially on the transfer report.  However the external reports mentioned above [viz. from Prof. Marshall] are extremely unpromising and there is a possibility that your work might at best be recommended for writing up as an M. Phil.  ....  If that were to be the case the EPSRC funding would terminate after two years.”
“Q. What did you mean by the reference to the M. Phil.?  A.  It is quite common in Ph.D. cases that the work is best recommended for an M. Phil. .  I only mentioned it as a possible recommendation.  Q.  Does not this paragraph show your intention: that is that if the disciplinary proceedings went on, the Claimant would be out with an M. Phil?  A.  No you cannot make that assumption.  Q.  If the Dean had come back and said “the allegations are not justified” would you have accepted that?  A.  That would have been my duty. .... The Dean’s investigation was quite independent of me.  I would have followed instructions from the Vice-Chancellor’s Department.”

284.	Prof. Bridge  was asked whether he recognised p. 211 and said that he did not think it was over-familiar.  It had not been read to him.  He said he would have very regular conversations with Dr Pervez.  He had no recollection of making these particular requests but because of the problems with the Claimant he had had many conversations with almost every member of the team.

285.	“Q.  The Marshall issue how did that come about?  A.  He was a member of your supervisory team.  He is an external collaborator and a very valued member of your team.  He was head of Internet research at BT and therefore very appropriate indeed to be on your team.  That is partly a personal assessment by myself.  I was responsible for getting him appointed as a visiting professor.  But I did not know him personally before his appointment.  Q.  Why do you say Marshall is a “very valued member”?  A.  All of them were.  I felt it was a very strong team.  It was not simply a question of Marshall’s prestige as head of Internet Research at BT, but also because he would be very familiar with the latest developments in the field.  I believe Ian Marshall was brought to my attention by Prof. Imhoff.  I met Ian Marshall personally every time he visited SBU.  We had discussions on telecommunications matters.  Q.  What do you say Marshall said to you and what did you say to him about the Claimant?  A.  I do not recall any discussion about you with him.  He resigned from SBU when he got a chair in computing at the University of Kent at Canterbury.  I really do not recall seeing him at the time of knowledge of your “interactions” with staff.  Before that, there was a time when I was not aware of your existence.”

286.	Prof Bridge said that the first time he was aware of anything from Ian Marshall was when he saw something from him in writing “which was when problems about your interactions arose.  I cannot say when that was.  Q.  At that time were you deciding the Protheroe issue?  A.  I believe that went on for a long time -- about nine months.  My very first meeting with you was about teaching matters. It was not uncommon that strongly-worded e-mails would go around between staff.  I did not feel I have to respond to every e-mail.  But I have never had a case where the sheer extent of e-mails was comparable to yours.  I cannot say I was looking at an Ian Marshall e-mail about you at the same time as I was looking at your complaint against Protheroe.  I think the Protheroe complaint was in fact a catalyst.  It made me aware of all the other problems about your research, your interaction with staff and technicians etc.  I had been aware of problems about your teaching for a long time.”  

287.	“Q.  Before 9 July were there any other complaints about the Claimant? A.  I cannot say.  The first complaints were oral and they were later reduced to writing. I cannot remember receiving a thing from Ian Marshall other than the written comments. At the 20 July meeting – I was trying to be helpful and constructive with you.  I asked you to see the research degrees co-ordinator.”  

288.	Prof Bridge was then asked about the letter at C 222: “Q.  At paragraph 26 of your witness statement you say ‘I recall well that ....without exception all staff who related to Mr Bangert on both teaching and research matters felt unable to work with him, the administration of the School was consequently being disrupted and all my best endeavours to remedy the situation had failed’ -- is that right? A: Yes.  I stand by that. Dr  Farwell carried out her own independent investigation and confirmed it.   

289.	Prof Bridge was then asked about page C233 -  from Dr Pervez: 
‘I have known Mr Bangert for about one and a half years in my capacity of Telecoms Group leader as well as his teaching mentor. I found him an intelligent and conscientious person, however, he has two serious problems, a) he is completely unable to interact with other people, b) he does not take much notice, in general, of advice given to him. This inability of his often results in a great deal of bitterness and misunderstanding between himself and others that he is interacting with....’ 
“A. This is a letter for information not a complaint.  But it was on a combination of documents like this I made a decision to ask Dr  Farwell to consider the matter under the disciplinary procedure, and Dr  Farwell decided to recommend exclusion.”

290.	Then, because it seemed to me that it was a fair summary of the Claimant’s case on this point, I asked the witness this: “The Claimant says that all of this is a smokescreen: you had an ulterior motive to get rid of him.  A.  Absolutely not.  It is with a very heavy heart that a head of School would report on matters such as this.  It would be with a feeling of failure at not having been able to deal with the problem.  I had been the head of school since 1989 and I have had to deal with many problems between staff and students; students and other students; and staff and staff.  Such matters came up about once a month.  One takes professional pride in being able to deal with such matters.  In respect of this one I felt I would be very irresponsible to let it drag on.  A higher authority had to be brought in.  It would be bad for the whole school otherwise.  I thought the proper course was to refer the matter to the Dean of Academic Affairs.  That is the procedure under the student code of conduct.”

291.	“Q.  So the appropriate procedure was to refer the matter to the Dean?  A.  Yes.  Q.  Well look at C 217A (the Claimant's transcript of a covert recording of a meeting between himself and Prof. Bridge on 24 July 2001) - you refused to ask the Dean to step in on your behalf?  A.  But this is about the Protheroe grievance procedure, under the staff code of conduct.  The reference to the Dean there is a reference to the Dean of Faculty, not the Dean of Academic Affairs.  The Dean of Academic Affairs would not have had anything to do with the Protheroe matter which was a staff [against] staff complaint.  That was for me to deal with and then the Dean of Faculty would hear the appeal.” 

292.	On this point it seemed to me that the Claimant was deliberately trying to confuse these two matters.  His knowledge of procedures within the setting of the SBU is unparalleled and he would have known very well the distinction between the two Deans.
293.	Q. “You attempted to coerce me to drop the grievance.  You stated that if I went again that I could have my EPSRC funding withdrawn, and consequently that it would be in my best interest to stop at stage two.  A.  I absolutely disagree with the suggestion that I attempted to coerce you into withdrawing any complaints.  I did believe you were wasting my time.  I thought the complaint against Dr Protheroe was vexatious, but we did continue.  Instead of spending time on your Ph.D. course you were spending your time bombarding staff with e-mails and that was bound to affect your Ph.D. studies.  My comments were advisory and said in a friendly way.”
294.	“Q. You also said that if I continued with this procedure that a number of other members of staff would be taking out grievances against me?  A.  That is an inaccurate transcription.  I may well have said that members of staff are aggrieved: there was an awful lot of heat in respect of you.  Your e-mail facility was withdrawn because of your September 11 article.”
295.	Prof Bridge said later, “I genuinely thought that Ian Marshall was part of the supervisory team. I asked him whether he had solicited the damaging reference in respect of the Claimant from Prof. Marshall.  “A.  Absolutely not.  I simply asked for the facts.  I cannot remember ever hearing Dr  Pervez saying he wanted to get rid of the Claimant.  The first time I ever heard of the expression “dynamite” was when I had a meeting with counsel.  Dr  Pervez never expressed “glee.” absolutely not. Prof. Marshall's letter was one of many items.  It was on an equal par with many other writers of evidence.  It is one paragraph in five paages of the document I sent to Dr  Farwell.  I was not aware of the November email.  I do have a memory after all these years that the Claimant had caused a lot of staff genuine distress in his behaviour towards them.  That is my sincere view in good faith.” 
Prof Robert Imhoff

296.	Professor Robert Erich Imhof was employed by SBU from 1994 until 5 June 2009, as Research Professor of Electrical Engineering. He has a BSc in Physics (Manchester University 1966), and a Ph.D.  (Manchester 1970), and is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical Engineering and a Chartered Engineer.

297.	His involvement with Mr Bangert was limited to contact in his capacity as Senior Tutor to the Research Students in the School of Electrical Electronic and Information Engineering. He took on the role as Senior Tutor shortly after joining the University in 1994 (before joining the University he had been a Professor of Physics at Strathclyde University). His main role as Senior Tutor was to offer help to students when problems arose that could not be dealt with by their supervisory team or with the Head of Department.

298.	 In common with most Higher Education Institutions the University has a Research Degrees Committee (“RDC”). The function of the Committee is to oversee the whole process of research study for higher degrees. Between 1994 and 2004 Prof. Imhoff was one of the EEIE’s two representatives on the RDC. His membership of the RDC was distinct from his role as Senior Tutor, which was a departmental role.

299.	Prof Imhof said that Dr Peng was Mr Bangert’s primary supervisor. In practical terms this would have meant that Dr Peng would be Mr Bangert’s first port of call when he had any problems with his research, whether they related to practical issues such as resources or matters relating to the substance of the research degree itself. However, this is not to say that the other supervisors did not have important roles to play. The whole point of having more than one supervisor is to have more than one person who is able to take responsibility for a student’s research. Co-supervision is also common. He believed that the supervisory team originally provided to Mr Bangert was a strong one.

300.	 The role of the Collaborating Partner is undefined but it would be hoped that the Collaborating Partner would enable the student to access additional expertise if he or she wished. Although he had no involvement in Professor Marshall being nominated as Mr Bangert’s contact at BT, Prof. Imhoff did know of Prof. Marshall through work with the Institute of Physics. He said he had no hesitation in saying he had sufficient expertise to play a constructive part in Mr Bangert’s research.

301.	Prof Imhoff’s formal involvement with Mr Bangert began when Professor Bridge notified Prof. Imhoff that he had referred Mr Bangert to him. There were difficulties in getting Mr Bangert to focus on his studies and he was disputing whether the proposed supervisory team (which involved the addition of Dr Xiao) was suitable. Prof. Imhoff said that he did recall having very brief informal chats with Prof. Alford about problems he was having with Mr Bangert but could not recall whether this was before or after Professor Bridge had contacted him. Prof. Imhoff remained in the background whilst Mr Bangert’s supervisory team (Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford) were attempting to find a way forward, although once Prof. Imhoff  knew Mr Bangert had been referred to him  he was expecting the Claimant to contact him, and Prof. Imhoff subsequently met him, he thought, in early October 2001.

302.	When he met Mr Bangert, Prof. Imhoff was not aware he was covertly recording their conversation. He had reviewed parts of the transcript of this recording, and as far as he could tell the content of those parts of the transcript appeared to reflect what happened at the meeting. The focus of this meeting was a form entitled “Application for Change in Approved Arrangements for Supervision”. This form had already been completed by his supervisory team and was intended to make provision for Dr Pervez to replace Dr Peng as Director of Studies and to bring in Dr Xiao as Second Supervisor.

303.	Prof Imhoff said in his witness statement that the form had already been signed by the three staff members but needed Mr Bangert’s signature before it could be submitted to the RDC for formal approval. This was a requirement of the Degree Regulations. “In my experience,” he said, “if a Supervisor is not willing to supervise a student he does not sign a form indicating a willingness to supervise. It therefore appeared to me that the proposed supervisory team were willing to supervise. I had first-hand knowledge of all three proposed supervisors (two of whom had already been approved by the RDC to supervise Mr Bangert). I was confident that the supervisory team was appropriately qualified to supervise Mr Bangert and that the RDC would approve the change. Had I taken a contrary view I would have contacted Professor Bridge and informed him that I had issues with the proposed supervisory team.”

304.	 “I repeatedly pointed out to Mr Bangert that (1) my role was to find a way forward so that his studies could continue, (2) his best interests would be served by signing the form and getting on with his studies, (3) he should focus on the ‘big picture’ by deciding what he wanted to get out of this situation.”

305.	Mr Bangert raised the issue of an external primary supervisor. Prof. Imhoff pointed out that such an arrangement would not be practical, since an external person would not have access to University facilities or resources, nor would they be available for consultation at short notice, as is essential in Ph.D. study. As a long-standing member of the RDC, he did not see this as an arrangement that the committee would approve, and would not have been content to speak in support of it. “Such an arrangement was unheard of” he said. In his view, a primary supervisor (also known as Director of Studies) must be accountable to the University. 

306.	He then added this: “I urged him repeatedly to sign the form so that other things may subsequently happen. If, for example, his supervisory team eventually agreed with him that an external person might be able to make a positive contribution to his studies, they would be in a position to make such arrangements independently of the formal supervisory arrangements. It emerged during these conversations that Mr Bangert had had no contacts of any kind with the external supervisor he was proposing. It also emerged that Mr Bangert had not pursued his studies in the past six months while he was involved in a number of disputes. I pointed out to him that it was important that he get back to his studies, not least because his stipend from the  Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (“EPSRC”) was paid on the understanding of satisfactory progress in his studies.”

307.	It appeared to Prof. Imhoff that Mr Bangert had become “fixated” on dealing with the various matters of complaint he had raised. “I felt that Mr Bangert had allowed himself to get bogged down in issues unrelated to his research.” He pointed out the obvious fact that in any large institution there will be clashes of personality. However, in his experience somebody who is serious about wanting to pursue their research does not allow such issues to distract them from their aim, which must be to complete their research and thus obtain their qualification. He tried to explain this to the Claimant. “He did not appear to agree and instead likened his position to that of somebody suffering from institutional racism. I did not see the similarity.”

308.	  Mr Bangert did express the view to him that the proposed supervisory team were not sufficiently competent to supervise him, or did not fulfil the requirements of the University or the EPSRC. Prof. Imhoff  disagreed with him. He said in his witness statement that he knew all three proposed supervisors. He was well aware of the requirements of the University and the EPSRC as regards the qualifications of supervisors and he took the view, which he expressed to Mr Bangert, that the proposed supervisory team was a very good one.

309.	 Significantly, in my judgment, Prof. Imhoff said that in his discussion with Mr Bangert he received the impression “that he was not interested in the basic requirements of a Ph.D.”  Whilst a Ph.D., he said in his witness statement, has to involve an element of novel research work, the fundamental aim of the Ph.D. is actually to teach the underlying research skills. Those skills include being able appropriately to document the progression of the research, to document the product of that research, and to put that research into context. By contrast, “Mr Bangert seemed very much focused on getting his research published. He appeared to perceive this as the be-all and end-all. Although Ph.D. work must be of a standard that could be published this is just one aspect of the Ph.D.” He was concerned by the attitude that Mr Bangert displayed. Had he been one of Prof. Imhoff’s own Ph.D. students he would have been concerned about his ability to successfully complete the Ph.D.

310.	Moreover, Prof. Imhoff said, Mr Bangert’s lack of progress was reflected in the fact that he had yet to complete his Transfer Report. This was an essential requirement (as other witnesses in this case have also made abundantly clear) for transferring a student’s registration from M. Phil. level to Ph.D. level. “Normally I would expect to see a Transfer Report after about 18-24 months of research. The RDC looks for evidence that a student has studied the literature and how his research fits into it. The student would be expected to demonstrate he was well on the way to writing his Ph.D. thesis and how it was going to be completed within the research timeframe. Any student who believed the Transfer Report was unimportant would be under a serious misconception. I find it very hard to believe any Ph.D. student would not realise the Transfer Report was a vital and substantial piece of work.”

311.	Their meeting ended, Prof. Imhoff said, with the conclusion that he would speak to the Claimant’s existing supervisory team about the possibility of adding an external collaborator to work with the team.  Mr Bangert had suggested he would speak to somebody at UCL in relation to this. 

312.	He then said: 
“I am aware that Mr Bangert has subsequently claimed that I agreed with him that his refusal to sign the change in supervisor document was reasonable. This is not true. In fact the situation was completely to the contrary. I was consistent in urging Mr Bangert to sign the form and get on with his studies. I did not offer to approach the RDC. I did not feel it appropriate to approach the RDC. The only basis upon which an approach could have been made was Mr Bangert’s wish to replace a strong supervisory team with an external person that neither Mr Bangert nor I had ever met. In my view this proposal would not meet with the approval of the RDC in any event.”

313.	Afterwards he said that he was very pessimistic that progress could be made, because of Mr Bangert’s refusal to accept his supervisory team. He could not see anything happening until this was done.

314.	He had little further subsequent involvement with Mr Bangert. He did discuss his case with Dr Ruth Farwell, probably in October 2001. He  answered various questions she asked of him  by confirming that the arrangements for Mr Bangert’s supervision were and always had been satisfactory. After Dr Peng left, Dr Pervez or Professor Alford were both perfectly capable of taking over as Mr Bangert’s main supervisor. They were acceptable to the RDC and had been approved when Mr Bangert originally signed his application to undertake his M. Phil.  in September 1999. The whole point of having more than one supervisor is to have more than one person who is able to take responsibility for a student’s research. Co-supervision is also common.  He also confirmed to Dr Farwell, first, that in his opinion Dr Xiao was an acceptable substitute for Dr Peng and would have been acceptable to the RDC as a member of Mr Bangert’s supervisory team.  Secondly, as far as Prof. Imhoff was aware, there was no good reason for Mr Bangert to refuse to work with any of the above supervisors.
315.	Cross-examined, he said he could recall only one meeting with the Claimant.  Two meetings had been planned, but the Claimant had not turned up for the first - which was why they had the second meeting.
316.	Asked about Prof. Alford, he said: “I do remember that Prof. Alford mentioned [problems with you] a couple of times.  Q.  What did he say?  A.  That he was trying to encourage you to work on your transfer report.  He did not say he had taken over your supervision.  He was one of the supervising team.  Q.  When were you first aware of adverse things?  A.  I think when there was frustration with progress.  It was during that summer and autumn some time.  I offered my services as Senior Tutor.  I became aware that attempts to get you to focus on your transfer report were not successful.  ....  You were signed up to a supervision arrangement with three supervisors and one external collaborator.  One of the supervisors left and that left you two supervisors and one external collaborator.  I did not see that as a problem.  The first problem was when you were not getting your transfer report together.  I do not recall discussing your case with Prof. Bridge.  I had not taken the view that there were serious problems because I had not even met you.  But I was particularly concerned about the progress of your research.  I did not see any progress reports and did not see your ten-month report.  Completing the change in supervisor form was the immediate problem so I set myself the task of getting you to sign that form.  I thought you had an excellent team.  I know Dr Xiao very well and thought he would make an excellent supervisor.  Prof. Marshall was the external collaborator.  It is the duty of the university to find supervisors: we have a responsibility for you as a student.  He had signed up and it was just a question of replacing one of the original team.  I had the form in respect of change in supervisor which I repeatedly put in front of you.”
317.	At this stage of the cross-examination of Prof. Imhoff by the Claimant,   I was not clear whether the Claimant challenged the evidence that Prof. Imhoff  had repeatedly put the form for change of supervisor in front of him or not.  I asked the Claimant to make it clear whether he was challenging this witness on this point.  The Claimant said that he was.  “He may have had the form in his hand but he had not actually shown it to me.”  The witness: “I  did  put the form in front of him repeatedly and asked him to sign it.  I said ‘let us get on with life.’  There were only three names written on it. Q.  Would it not be sensible to give it to the Claimant and let him take it away, and show it to his lawyer or student union representative?  A.  It was a trivial matter.  You didn’t ask for that.  You never mentioned any of these people.  Q.  Did any Ph.D.  student ever express any anxiety because of a change in supervisor to you?  A.  No.  You have a supervisory team.  It happens all the time that people from the team leave to go on sabbaticals, change posts, and so on.”

318.	“So far as Ian Marshall was concerned it is very common for an external collaborator to be on the supervisory team.  Ian Marshall is shown as the collaborating partner on p. 1 of the application you made.  He was the collaborator not BT.  You do not collaborate with companies, but with people. It is not correct that Prof. Marshall was not approved by the research degrees committee because they look at the whole document [the application] and the whole package and the judgement of the research degrees committee would be that it was agreed.  Ian Marshall was not a formal supervisor.  This document then stands until a new document reaches the research degrees committee, and you would not sign that.  Research degrees committees do not interview people.  They look at the documents, that’s all.  You had a strong supervisory team and one member left.  That was fine.  Life goes on.”
319.	Prof Imhoff was asked about the transcript of a recording made by the Claimant of a meeting with him on 2 October 2001.  He agreed that that accurately showed the meeting beginning as follows:
“BI [Prof Imhoff]: Anyway, my concern here, you know my role in looking after research students, is very much to look at progress and ...  in converting to a Ph.D., and I think in your case I get the feeling that other matters have intervened and what I would like to find out now is what your progress has been and is it going to converge to a Ph.D. in 3 years, which is what our aim is.
TB [the Claimant]: Well ... as far as I am concerned, and I don't know if you have looked my / at any of my work, I've put stuff on my web server ... so, all of my research work is reasonably well documented there... I will have / get expert opinion because of these kind of bureaucratic things, but as far as I am concerned there isn't any problem on my research side.
BI:  Well, except what I noticed is that there is no transfer report, and at this stage I would have expected a transfer report. 
TB: And there is good reason why there isn't a transfer report.
BI: Well, that's ... my concern, you see, because if... that gets delayed and then you can always still get hoping to go, you know, that is the problem. 
TB: But I have encountered institutional problems, and ... up till, you know up till May  I ... there were some problems but I could ignore them and continue with my work but in May they became sufficiently bad that I had to stop all / stop all work and concentrate just on ... just on bureaucratic / bureaucratic issues, 
[BI: No! That’s not concern ...] 
just in order to survive. 
BI: ... I know all these things are going on and I certainly don't want to become involved in all those arguments that have been going around ... but my concern is that, you know, what you have said, that it has actually stopped your research work,[TB: yes] and that of course is very very serious. 
TB:  ... I am an employee as well, part time, hourly paid lecturer, so ... the basic issue is that I launched a grievance against another member of staff, which theoretically shouldn't affect my research work, but what has happened is that ... I forced through the grievance, the people looking at the grievance didn't want to take that grievance on board, even to follow the procedure, so I took steps to push that through. And, what has happened is that I am being attacked as a student on the basis of my pushing through that grievance.
BI: Well, like I said I don't wan't to get involved in any of those arguments 
TB: But basically, they want to / they want to throw me out basically, so of course I have to concentrate on, you know ... I'm not going to get a Ph.D.  if members of staff try to throw me out. 
BI: You know, you're not temporary lecturer now are you, right now?
TB: Well I don't have a contract / I don't have a contract at the moment, no.
BI: No. Thats right. ... so your source of money is the Science Research Council.
TB: EPSRC.
BI: Yeah, and they ... pay ... research students to do research. And you are saying that seems to me bombing. [TB: thats right] And thats of course is a major concern. [TB: I have written to the EPSRC saying that]. They/they/ they want to see ... resolved and lead up to ... being a degree. And ... [whistling sound] its not in here, you know /
TB: I have written to the EPSRC outlining the basic problems [BI: Yeah, yeah] and they have written back to me saying they are going to look into it. I think they told me that they are asking someone, maybe its you, to review the case or [BI: No, I have no contact with the EPSRC, but ah] they have written ...telling to me that they have asked somebody to reply, sent some formal request. They have asked for a formal report or something. ...
320.	There then follows this significant passage:
BI: Another of my concerns is this thing [the transfer of supervision document]. It lacks a signature. TB: Yes. And for good reasons. BI: Again, you know, there is not much of a way forward if you don't have a supervisor and you are not doing research. And you are getting paid to do research. TB: Well, I was asked to sign this by Anjum Pervez. But I've explained to him, and I have written this formally to the Head of the School saying that I have a number of concerns, and there was never any reply to that letter. So I have a number of formal concerns and those in my view need to be addressed. If I write a letter, even if my concerns are mistaken, then that letter does need a reply. If I think there are things that are not correct then ... I mean, I can't sign a document that I know to be incorrect. BI: I didn't know there was anything incorrect in this. It just says that Dr. Peng left.  [TB: Uh huh] And its proposing a new supervisor team. So, whats wrong with that? TB: Well, if the ... there are rules about supervisors. I mean, supervisors need to be qualified to supervise. So, in my view they don't meet the requirement of the EPSRC and the University. BI: Well, ... I think you are wrong on that. Because I think they are very experienced people. TB: Anjum Pervez? As primary supervisor? BI: I've known him for donkeys years. TB: What research does he do? BI: Well, thats not the point. The point is, this is Ph.D. supervision. Ph.D.  is about research, but much more so it is about training research. Transferable skills ... Certainly I have no difficulty in saying that this is a very good supervisor team. We are bringing in, because of a, you spend ordinary on this, Perry Xiao, Jim, both of whom are experienced in terms of ... the area in which ... Neil Alford is a very senior at the University. TB: But he isn't proposed as the primary supervisor. BI: It doesn't matter. It’s a team.  TB: Another issue is that I have a grievance ...  against Anjum Pervez. So it seems to be, I mean, if there is an outstanding grievance against a member of staff, that member of staff can't be asked to supervise. 
[Prof Imhof apparently said nothing for a time as the transcript has  ‘12 seconds dead air’ in square brackets.]
 BI: It’ s a mess isn't it. TB: Pardon me. BI: Its a mess. TB: Yes. This is why I have asked a number of times for external supervision. I mean, clearly none of these people, except to some degree Perry, have any expertise in my area of research. [BI: well that/that] And that is one of the requirements. Primary supervisor must have expertise, research expertise in the area of research. BI: In the broad area in which you are, of course he has expertise. He is a lecturer in the Telecomms. In fact he is in charge of Telecomms. TB: He doesn't have any expertise in network protocols. BI: Well yeah, but you are talking about a little bit inside a bigger bit. ....Ah, we reckon that ah, in general, if a research student doesn't overtake in his area of specialization doesn't overtake his supervisor at some stage in his Ph.D.  then he is not doing a good job as a research student, because inevitable a supervisor has a huge number of duties, .... inevitably the student will have expertise that his supervisor can't match. His supervisor has the big picture and you have the little picture.”
 
321.	Prof Imhof was then asked in cross-examination about the ‘dynamite’ email. “Q.  Have you seen the dynamite e-mail before?  A.  This is the first time I have read it.  ....  If Dr  Pervez signed the change of supervision form, he would have been prepared to supervise you.  I think that Dr  Pervez is expressing extreme frustration using the phrase “get rid of him” There was certainly no conspiracy to get rid of you.  If I had known about this e-mail I would have gone to Dr  Pervez said “what is this all about?”  And tried to sort it out.
322.	Later, Prof. Imhoff said “all I was concerned with was getting your Ph.D.”  At this stage a passage from p. 588 of the transcript was referred to and that reads as follows:
TB: .... people are blocking my work intentionally. Its more than that, I can prove that. So, I have spent the last 4 months putting together logs and observations so at the end of the day I will be able to prove that. ....Because if I don't do that then I will spend all my time for the Ph.D.  on these kinds of issues and I just won't be successful at the end.
BI: Well I think what you have got is a recipe for not being successful in the end. That is why I'm asking you to focus much more on actually getting the Ph.D. . Just get it done, get the hell out of here, two fingers up, I've got what I want, sod you. And then ... you know, who is the winner then, its you.
TB: Ah, assuming that happens. But ...
BI: Yeah well, yeah but / Believe you me, this University wants to give you a Ph.D. ! Believe me! Because every student that we take on, particularly when they are EPSRC funded, we want to make absolutely bloody sure that you go out of here with a Ph.D. . That is what we are in the business for. We wouldn't be working here if it wasn't for that.
TB: In the meeting with the Head of the School regarding my employment issues, the Head of School told me 'if you don't drop this I will see to it that your transfer report is failed'.....
BI: But you are not even in a position to even submit a transfer report without this.
TB: Well, the point is if  I am threatened like this ...
BI: Well I don't believe that Bryan said that, you must have misunderstood that, that doesn't make any sense. Apart from anything else he's got no influence over it. The transfer report goes to the University degrees committee. Research Degrees Committee. I am on that, he is formally on it but he never turns up.
323.	Prof Imhoff concluded his evidence by saying again, “All I was concerned with was getting you a Ph.D.  You kept on going on about some external person -- but the important point was that you had to sign a transfer of supervision.  A Ph.D. is a training exercise.  Research is part of it and publication may follow, but you have to learn research skills.  You cannot just focus on one part.  Without a transfer report you cannot transfer from M. Phil.  On the change of supervision form I had the signatures of three people who were willing to supervise you.” From so mildly-mannered a witness, there were clear signs of exhausted patience in this.  
324.	As noted at an early stage in this judgment the Claimant had said that Prof. Imhoff had a reputation for being “moderate, supportive and reasonable.”  The accuracy of each of those epithets was amply demonstrated in the transcript of the covert recording which the Claimant made of their long conversation. His moderation may, at times during his conversation with the Claimant, have shown itself in tempering the wind to the shorn lamb:  e.g. when describing the state of the formal arrangements for the Claimant’s supervision as “a mess,” after a long pause, he made no comment as to who was primarily responsible for that. I drew the inference from the context that, however sympathetic he was trying to be, it was his view that it was the Claimant himself who was primarily responsible for the mess. He, like Prof. Alford, was an impressive witness.  
Findings of fact
325.	Before dealing with the particular questions set out at paras 85 – 87 above I will deal with some specific areas of the evidence on a number of issues.
Supervision
326.	On the question of supervision generally, I concluded that the Claimant’s evidence was unsatisfactory: it was characterised by vagueness, uncertainty and self-contradiction.  Had he been diligently proceeding with his theoretical work, and making ready for the testing of that work (the empirical stage) which was due to start in June 2001, he would undoubtedly have made much progress (as indeed he claims he had) which would have provided him with substantial quantities of material which could have been shown to Dr Pervez during February to June. 
327.	Having regard to the amount of email correspondence which the Claimant has always produced, and his readiness to respond in great detail when developments take place with which he disagrees, I have no doubt that had there been any such substantial material, Dr Pervez would have been shown it or sent it by email.  Dr Pervez was not shown it, then or since, nor has it been made available for inspection in this case or at all.  The only logical inference to be drawn is that there is not, and never was any such material, which should have been in existence (and the Claimant claims was in existence) long before the differences arose which led to these proceedings.
328.	Then there was the unsatisfactory evidence given by the Claimant as to who was and who was not a member of the  team:
“Q:  who do you say were members of your supervisory team? A:  my director of studies was Dr Peng; Dr Pervez; Prof. Alford. Only Prof. Alford had the requisite qualifications as a supervisor. Q:  you say you had no supervision after Dr Peng left in January 2001? Why did you not then approach Dr Pervez or Prof. Alford to identify who was your director of studies? A:  It did cross my mind, but I was also warned by Dr Peng that there were problems at the University -- Dr Peng had been forced out by Dr Pervez -- so I was wary.
“Q: Trial bundle D618 -- that shows that you knew exactly who your supervisors were? A:  no. J: look at your witness statement at p. 91 paragraph 8.  A: I was confused. Q:  but D618 is an interview in October 2001, your witness statement was made in 2009? A:  [after a long introduction] it was not clear in my mind at the time they had different functions. There was some confusion. Q:  but look at D642 where you say “I do not at present have a supervisor” is that also confusion? A:  in retrospect I would say “I do not have a first supervisor. [i.e. Director of studies]”
“Q:  you say Dr Pervez was not involved in your supervision at all between January and May 2001? A:  yes. Q:  in May 2001 Prof. Alford took over as your supervisor? A:  yes, up to the point when he said he wasn't, and that Dr Pervez was. J: how often had you attended on Dr Peng for supervisions? A:  not that often -- perhaps once a month. J: after he left who were you attending upon for supervisions? The answer there was a crisis at the school so I was very busy teaching. I thought it would be sorted out amicably. I had meetings with Dr Pervez but they were all employment-related.
Q:….  you didn't want Perry Xiao because you knew he'd be able to give an accurate assessment of your work ... A:  quite the contrary.”  
329.	This evidence was vague, uncertain and not credible.  The Claimant has shown himself to be meticulous to the point of fastidiousness in his ordering of detail and in formal and procedural matters. On so important a point, therefore, this lack of detail tells significantly against him.  By contrast, Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford were clear, definite and demonstrated a professional approach. Their recollections were confirmed to some extent by the absence of any of the material which they said they were told existed but never saw. The reason for Prof. Alford’s involvement was a matter upon which they agreed.  I preferred their evidence in every respect on this topic.
330.	 As to Dr Xiao, the Claimant’s own covert recordings demonstrated that he did not object to him as a supervisor because he suspected him of involvement in a plot against him, but because of their personal differences over a computer and over what the Claimant regarded as abusive language. This was a wholly inadequate reason in all the circumstances. 
The Claimant’s suspicions
331.	The Claimant asserted that the memorandum circulated by Professor Alford and Dr. Pervez, following a meeting with the Claimant on 19th June 2001 amounted to a “declaration of war” against him because it stated that:
“2. Any piece of equipment which is the personal property of Mr. Bangert must be removed from the teaching laboratory equipment and returned to Mr. Bangert immediately” [C120]  
332.	This instruction was given because, at a meeting with the Claimant on 19th June 2001, Dr. Pervez and Professor Alford were made aware that contrary to the Defendant University’s rules, the Claimant had been using personal equipment in the laboratory [C108].  
333.	 In response to the Claimant’s contention that Dr. Pervez and Professor Alford must have known that removing his personal equipment would damage his research work, Mr Hamilton’s submission was as follows: the issue emerged for the first time during the Claimant’s cross-examination of Mr. Nigrin. It was not mentioned in the Claimant’s pleadings or his statement. He did not mention it under cross-examination, even when he was specifically asked if anything had happened following the meeting on 19th June 2001 that caused him to send an email to Professor Alford on the 22nd, stating there were “irreconcilable differences” between himself and the “supervisor and the director of my group” [C125]. His response to this question was that he was frustrated and acted in haste.  He failed to raise the concerns he says he had when he responded to the memorandum in an email dated 21st June 2001. In this email, he analysed the memo, and complained about the wording of some other parts of the memorandum [C121]. He did not raise any objections when at the meeting on 19th June 2001 (a transcript of which he provided) when he was told immediate steps would be taken to remove his personal equipment from the laboratory [C108]. It is submitted this is an issue raised by the Claimant at the eleventh hour to provide a reason for writing the “irreconcilable differences” email on 22 June 2001. There is no credible evidence to support this allegation, which is based entirely on the Claimant’s beliefs and misconceptions.  I agree with this submission, for the reasons given by Mr Hamilton.
334.	Following Prof. Bridge’s long memorandum to the Claimant in July Mr Bangert said that he thought Prof. Alford & Dr Pervez had been called by Prof. Bridge to make sure that he did not pass his transfer report, but Prof. Alford and Dr Xiao made clear to him (C 355) that they were astonished by the suggestion.  Having heard and seen them myself, I have no doubt that they were wholly honest in saying that, and that that would have been clear to the Claimant.  Moreover, Dr Xiao articulated the reason for its not being true – SBU would have nothing to gain. In any event failing to pass with his transfer report was not the reason for his exclusion, whereas failure to produce one by (inter alia) failing to agree a change in supervision was one of the reasons. 
335.	Whether the Claimant genuinely suspected bad faith on the part of Dr Pervez or not:
1)	the way ahead was to produce a satisfactory transfer report with the assistance of Prof. Alford and Dr Xiao if necessary;
2)	if he needed more time or more equipment to perform particular tests, Prof. Alford had shown that he would be sympathetic, but the Claimant did not even try to show co-operation; 
3)	if he had produced one, and his transfer report were failed unreasonably, then he could have sought an independent assessment so that it could be confirmed  that it was satisfactory; or it could have been re-submitted.

Evidence on the question of Dr Pervez and his suggested bad faith – the “dynamite” emails  
336.	The Claimant says that it is obvious that Dr Pervez acted in bad faith.  Having deliberately sought a discreditable reference, obviously in breach of Data Protection legislation, he then effectively lied to the defendant when he was challenged about whether or not he had done so: see C355 above. Taken with the jubilant tone of the email referring to dynamite, and the unambiguous words “I hope we can get rid of him” he submits that nothing could be clearer. 
337.	 It is submitted by the Defendant University that despite those matters, on balance, consideration of the whole of the evidence supports Dr. Pervez’s assertion of good faith. Dr. Pervez, more than anyone, appears to have tried to facilitate the Claimant’s research. He treated the Claimant as “a member of the team”. He agreed the Claimant could use the newly purchased teaching computers in his Laboratory to build a network. In 2000, he arranged for the technicians to collaborate with the Claimant in this work. Between January and May 2001, he tried to obtain information from the Claimant about his research in order to help him progress. In May 2001, he asked Professor Alford to take the lead in assisting the Claimant because he was having no success and he believed Professor Alford’s greater experience would benefit the Claimant. He did his best to resolve the difficulties between the Claimant and the Laboratory technicians [B53-5 paragraphs 43-46]. These were not the actions of someone trying to get rid of the Claimant or hinder his progress.
338.	The Claimant by contrast acted in an obstructive and disruptive manner. In this context, Dr. Pervez’s reaction to Professor Marshall’s assessment of the Claimant’s lack of ability is entirely plausible. It is summarised in his statement: 
“I was pretty fed up with Thomas’ behaviour by this point and Professor Marshall’s assessment made me wonder whether Thomas was just wasting everybody’s time” [B57 paragraph 53]
339.	Further it is submitted by the Defendant University that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that Dr. Pervez took any steps after 23rd July 2001 to obstruct or hinder the Claimant’s research. If anything he showed extreme forbearance in the face of the Claimant’s continuing unreasonable behaviour and refusal to co-operate with anyone. In all the circumstances it is submitted that Dr. Pervez’s evidence on this issue should be accepted. 
340.	The final email relied on to show overt bad faith on the part of Dr. Pervez was sent to Professor Marshall on the 14th November 2001, in which Dr. Pervez states:
“…… Further, the good news of 2001 is that Bangert has been excluded from the University this afternoon. Everyone concerned is suddenly feeling peaceful. I will tell more when we meet”.
341.	It is submitted that by the time this email was sent, the situation had changed significantly. The Claimant had effectively withdrawn from supervision by Dr. Pervez and Professor Alford, having behaved in a rude and insulting manner towards them on 26th September 2001, and, on 11th October 2001 having instigated a spurious grievance against him [D661] which was subsequently dismissed. (It should be noted this grievance appears to have been prepared on 27th Sember 2001 [D561-566]). In the circumstances, Dr. Pervez was entirely justified (as at November 2001) in feeling a sense of relief that the Claimant had been required to leave the Defendant University.
342.	The Claimant denies he behaved in such a rude and insulting manner towards Professor Alford and Dr. Pervez at a meeting on 26th September 2001, which he claims never took place. They say they decided to suspend any further meetings.  The meeting on the 26th September is described by Professor Alford in a memorandum to Ruth Farwell dated 1st October 2001, in which he notifies her about the Claimant’s behaviour. In this memorandum he states:
“At the meeting on 26.9.01, Mr. Bangert’s response to our comments were to say that they were pedestrian and in Dr. Pervez’s case he completely dismissed the comments in a manner which I felt was both rude and abusive.”
343.	The Claimant has sought to argue that this was actually the meeting on 16th August 2001. He relies on the fact that when giving oral evidence, Professor Alford was uncertain about the date of the meeting. The Claimant also argued that the transcript of the meeting on that date shows the Claimant referring to Professor Alford’s advice as “pedestrian”. He argues that the transcript does not show him being rude or abusive. This argument, the Defendant submits, is unsustainable. There was clearly a meeting on 26th September. The timing of Professor Alford’s memorandum only four days later, supports this. Professor Alford is clear in his statement [B9 at paragraph 36] that the Claimant was rude about Dr. Pervez’s comments on Mr. Bangert’s work. These were not sent to the Claimant until 4th Serptember [D520 item 3]. Accordingly the meeting referred to could not have been in August. Additionally on 26th September 2001, Dr. Pervez sent the Claimant an email reminding him of the meeting later that day [D555]. It is submitted it is beyond doubt this meeting took place and that it is likely the Claimant recorded it as he had recorded all the previous meetings, but has chosen not to disclose this recording because even he realises it shows him in a bad light. In my judgment these submissions are sound: the evidence clearly shows that there was indeed a meeting on the 26th September.  That there is no transcript is probably, in my view, because the content of the recording would offer the Claimant no assistance. 

344.	By the time he made contact with Prof. Marshall in July 2001 Dr Pervez, in my judgment, was indeed exasperated with the Claimant, who was a source of great difficulty for him. He wanted an end to the continual bickering and confrontational behaviour, which was drain upon his energy, his time and his patience. If the Claimant had simply decided to leave, I have no doubt Dr Pervez would have been delighted.  But the way he put it to Prof. Marshall was that “we want to take some firm actions to limit his unacceptable behaviour.” His Ph. D was not “progressing in the right direction” but it was impossible to have any meaningful discussions with him. He asked Prof. Marshall to confirm that the Claimant’s behaviour had been unreasonable towards him.

345.	Was this a devious and underhand attempt to obtain something which would provide a means of getting rid of the Claimant? I do not think it was.   I found Dr Pervez an essentially truthful witness, who did not try to conceal his embarrassment over the way he had phrased his emails to Prof. Marshall. He showed signs of being self-critical, and was ready to consider the accuracy of his recollection when challenged. Moreover, in my view the fact that Dr Pervez was a truthful witness is demonstrated by evidence of what he did and said both before and after the relevant emails to Prof. Marshall.   
(1)	He had backed the Claimant up in respect of a number of matters from the very beginning:  (a) getting him teaching work; (b) allowing him to set up his network; (c) supporting the Claimant in disputes with Mr Nigrin; (d) continuing to act as a supervisor during 2001 - long after Prof. Marshall made his (oral) disparaging assessment of the Claimant to him. 

(2)	That he had in fact taken over as supervisor is demonstrated by the fact that it was he who involved Prof. Alford.  He says that that was because he could get no evidence of research work from the Claimant.  There is no evidence of research work being shown to him at this time.  Prof. Alford confirms that that was how he became directly involved. Once Prof. Alford was involved, although he deferred to him, Dr Pervez remained firmly involved, punctiliously attending meetings despite the fact that they were of a tiresome nature as a result of the Claimant’s conduct.

(3)	The Claimant’s own covert recordings show Dr Pervez time and again pleading for progress regarding the transfer report.

(4)	The Claimant behaved unreasonably towards both Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford in the meetings.  His conduct was such as might conceivably have justified any supervisor in beginning a process to become personally disengaged from the supervision of the Claimant. Dr Pervez did not do so until at least the time of the email to Prof. Marshall.

(5)	Dr Pervez was approached by Prof. Bridge because the Claimant was being disruptive in different ways.  Prof. Bridge was entitled to approach him as the Claimant’s supervisor.  Prof. Bridge was entitled to expect Dr Pervez to be objective and to take a professional approach, whatever his personal feelings were.  Given that Dr Peng was no longer even nominally part of the supervisory team, it was entirely reasonable for Prof. Marshall, as an independent person with some involvement with the Claimant to be asked to give a view.

(6)	I did not consider that any breach of Data Protection legislation was knowingly committed.  Dr Pervez appeared genuinely puzzled when this was put to him.  He regularly obtained references without the knowledge of the subject of the reference, he said.  It may be (the matter was simply not explored at all at the hearing) that there was some breach of the legislation, but the suggestion that that demonstrates bad faith, as distinct from ignorance of the law -- if it was even that -- on the part of Dr Pervez in my view has no substance.

(7)	Dr Pervez did not accept that he had been asked to obtain ‘ammunition.’  There is no reason to believe that Dr Pervez thought that Prof. Marshall had anything other than an honestly-held view.  Plainly he expected that view to be a negative one: he knew that Prof. Marshall had (months beforehand) suggested that SBU would be better off getting rid of the Claimant.  However, Dr Pervez had done absolutely nothing other than be supportive of the Claimant since that time, despite the provocation from the Claimant. 

(8)	When Prof. Marshall expressed the view he did, with such articulate and forceful reasoning, Dr Pervez was plainly surprised at how strongly-held it was.  Hence “dynamite.”  It may very well have come as something of a relief to find that his own private view was shared by someone with independent experience of the Claimant months earlier. “I hope we can get rid of him somehow” no doubt reflected that feeling. 

(9)	    I accept that the phrases he used were used impulsively.  For, whilst Dr Pervez passed Prof. Marshall’s views on to Prof. Bridge, the evidence does not show him taking any other active part in attempting to rid the SBU of the Claimant thereafter: on the contrary it shows him persisting with infinite patience in trying to get the Claimant to do something to achieve his transfer report.

(10)	In particular, he did not attempt to use the report to influence Prof. Alford.  He took a professional approach.  If, as Prof. Marshall suggested, the Claimant would be unable to show himself fit to proceed to the degree, Dr Pervez was content to deal with the matter in that way. 

(11)	That persistence in patience was shared by Prof. Alford, until both of them were so negatively dealt with by the Claimant that they, almost at the very end (after even the 11th September 2001 article) they gave up the struggle to persuade the Claimant to see reason.

346.	The complainant was continuing to make complaints and exhibiting unreasonable behaviour, with a particularly unreasonable attitude to minor points of procedure and similar trivialities at meetings. He was ready to take offence at any opportunity and showed little if any evidence of having done the work he was there to do. Therefore, when Prof. Bridge started to seek views generally in respect of the Claimant is quite likely that Dr  Pervez genuinely thought that it was an opportunity to demonstrate that adverse views about the Claimant were not merely confined to the Department, the school, or the University.
347.	In my view there was nothing conspiratorial about it: Dr  Pervez knew Prof. Marshall had formed an independent view upon the basis of matters which were outside Dr  Pervez’s experience. He sought the expression of that view and was understandably gratified when he found that it so strongly accorded with his own. He also knew, I am satisfied, that communicating that view to Prof. Bridge would almost certainly result in Prof. Bridge taking a more resolute approach to the Claimant. That might have resulted, for example, in an ultimatum from Prof. Bridge, perhaps demanding completion of a transfer report. But there is no evidence to show that Dr  Pervez was acting in bad faith. Nor is there the slightest piece of evidence that he deliberately frustrated the Claimant’s ability to prepare a transfer report.
348.	The Claimant seeks to characterise Dr  Pervez's conduct at the very least as a breach of a fiduciary duty of care because Dr  Pervez was nominally at least his supervisor. I do not think there was any such breach. He was betraying no confidence. Dr  Pervez’s superior, Prof. Bridge, was seeking to get at the truth and to have a balanced, overall, frank and honest view. To have suppressed Prof. Marshall's frank opinion would have been to conceal something which he knew to be the view of an independent person which was a view confirmed entirely by his own experience. He demonstrated his bona fides to the Claimant, in my view, by continuing to attempt to persuade the Claimant to produce a transfer report and continuing to attend meetings. His patience is illustrated notably at a late stage, for example, in the transcript of the meeting of 16 August 2001.  The suggestion that he lied to the Claimant at the earlier meeting (see C355) is not made out.  It is true that he did not admit that he had obtained the reference from Prof. Marshall, but he was satisfied in his own mind that that was confidential. He was observing, in my view, his own professional standards: he was going about dealing with the Claimant in a strictly proper way, giving him the opportunity to prove himself if he wished, whatever his private wishes might be. 
349.	Had the Claimant shown some real evidence of an intention to produce his transfer report I have no doubt that Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford would not have obstructed him but would have sought to plead his cause, whatever Prof. Marshall had said.
Specific allegations against Prof. Bridge
350.	I now consider the Claimant’s submission that Professor Bridge acted in bad faith in that at a meeting on 23rd July 2001 he threatened the Claimant with withdrawal of funding and failure if he did not drop his complaint against Dr. Prothroe. Professor Bridge denies making any threats against the Claimant at the meeting on 23rd June 2001. At the time, he made it clear to the Claimant that he “totally disagreed” with his account of that meeting [D246 paragraph 18]. In his oral evidence he said all he did was give the Claimant advice. Since no other person was present at the relevant time and the Claimant claims his covert recording device failed him, there is no record of what was said. However it is submitted that the reliability of the Claimant’s account may be gauged by comparing his account of his second private meeting with Professor Bridge on 24th June 2001, with the transcript that he subsequently disclosed [217A – 217C]. The Claimant’s account of this second meeting is set out in his chronology, which was prepared for Ruth Farwell’s benefit in early August 2001. He describes the meeting on 24th June in the following terms:
“Bryan Bridge insists that he used a different policy and procedure that I had invoked. In an attempt to coerce me into accepting the document he wished to use he was tried [sic] in different stages: humiliation, intimidation, undermining, demeaning, insulting, accusing. When I insisted that I had invoked the “bullying” procedure and that I had every right to insist on procedure being followed he berated me in a most severe and rude manner (stating categorically that he and only he would decide on which document to use and how it would be) and then threw me out of his office “
351.	It is submitted by the Defendant University that this bears only a passing resemblance to the contents of the transcript and is at best a gross misrepresentation of what the transcript shows happened. It demonstrates the Claimant’s unsupported account of events cannot be relied on and it is highly unlikely Professor Bridge threatened the Claimant as alleged.
352.	As to the allegation that Professor Bridge acted in bad faith in soliciting negative references and feedback in respect of the Claimant, in order to be able to have disciplinary proceedings instigated against him, it is submitted by the Defendant University that Professor Bridge was under a duty to try to address the problems with the Claimant’s research, once they had been brought to his attention. He was entitled to request information from those staff members who had been involved with the Claimant’s research work in order to try and understand what was going on. The fact that Professor Marshall had reached a negative view about the Claimant’s ability to accept guidance and advice did not preclude him from being asked to give his views. Even if Professor Bridge were aware Professor Marshall held these negative views, he would have been entitled to ask him for information. In his oral evidence Professor Bridge was quite clear that what he did not “call for damaging reports”. There is no evidence whatsoever that Professor Bridge was in any way involved in soliciting negative information about the Claimant.
353.	The fact Professor Bridge (via Professor Alford) sought feedback from Dr. Peng, his former supervisor with whom (as far as anyone knew) he had no quarrel, strongly suggests he was not interested in obtaining only negative information.  As to the allegation that Professor Bridge acted in bad faith in that by his memorandum dated July 2001, he caused disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the Claimant that led to his exclusion, knowing his allegations against the Claimant were untrue or trivial, the defendant submits that the issues raised by Professor Bridge in his memorandum to Dr Farwel are reflected in the evidence that was before him and represent a fair summary of the concerns relating to the Claimant’s academic performance and attitude to his research. In his oral evidence Professor Bridge made it clear he considered he was under a positive duty to bring these matters to the attention of Dr. Farwell, if he believed he was no longer able to deal with them.  I accept his evidence as to this. 
354.	Dr. Farwell then independently investigated the issues raised by Professor Bridge. Dr. Farwell concluded some of the allegations were not proved, that some were proved but did not justify further action and others should not be pursued. The three allegations she found proved were considered sufficiently serious to result in the Claimant’s exclusion. The findings were scrutinised under the Defendant University’s appeal procedure and unsuccessfully challenged by Judicial Review. They were upheld in both instances. In the circumstances it is submitted by the Defendant University that it is hard to see how the Claimant can possibly argue that all Professor Bridge’s concerns were either trivial or untrue. I agree. 

Specific findings of fact
355.	I now summarise my findings as to the answers to the specific questions of fact set out  at an earlier stage in this judgment.

(1)	 I find that Prof. Marshall was involved as an agreed external collaborator from the beginning until late in June 2000 when he withdrew for the reasons he gave. He had contact with the Claimant by email and at a very small number of meetings, dealing with artifical intelligence matters.  There is no evidence whatsoever to show that Prof. Marshall “lobbied the Defendants to get rid of the Claimant.”  Prof. Marshall had shown himself to be almost as tolerant and patient as Prof. Alford in the face of the Claimant’s discourtesies and confrontational approaches.  He showed a readiness to be helpful, as exemplified by the only extant emails on the topic of their initial technical discussions. His exasperation which led to his request to have no more to do with the Claimant late in the year 2000 is understandable.  There is no evidence that he had any contact thereafter with the Defendant University concerning the Claimant until asked to state his views by Dr Pervez in July 2001.  When he did so, he set them out honestly.  His assessment of the Claimant’s character then is in accordance with what I saw and heard of the Claimant during the hearing eight years later.
(2)	 I accept Dr Pervez’s evidence that he asked the Claimant to provide details of the progress he was making with his research in the period from Dr Peng’s departure until Prof. Alford was involved more directly in May 2001.  His account accords with Prof. Alford’s and is in no way made doubtful by the evidence of the Claimant.  There is no evidence to show any dissatisfaction with supervision by the Claimant during this period. His readiness to express dissatisfaction via email in particular, or to make complaints when he chooses to do so, is amply demonstrated time and again in the papers. That there is no such contemporaneous complaint about supervision during this period is in my view significant.
(3)	I find as a fact that it was Dr Pervez, and not the Claimant, who raised the issue of supervision with Prof. Alford, for the reasons Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford gave, in May 2001.
(4)	and (5) Mr. Nigrin gave me the impression whilst he was in the witness box of a careful, responsible and professional man. This was confirmed by the assessments of him given by Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez, and, significantly, in the previously undisclosed covert recording of him, made by the Claimant. I accept his evidence. I reject entirely the suggestion that he deliberately obstructed The Claimant’s empirical work, or that he or any other technician acted in bad faith. I am satisfied that Mr Nigrin found the Claimant a demanding, assertive, and confrontational individual.  He is shown by the Claimant’s own covert recordings to have been, nevertheless, both long-suffering in the face of provocative words from the Claimant (“goading” as Prof. Alford described it) and anxious for the Claimant to succeed. 
(6)	(7) & (8) Neither Dr. Pervez nor Prof. Alford failed to intervene to prevent the technicians obstructing the Claimant’s research.  First, I find that no unjustified obstruction took place, for the reasons I have already given.  Secondly, it is clear to me that both Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford tried their best to accommodate the Claimant’s demands with the proper use of the laboratory facilities for teaching.  There was no question of their acting in any way other than in the best of faith in doing so. In June 2001 Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford acted as they did in instructing Mr. Nigrin to remove the Claimant’s personal equipment from the Laboratory (a) in order to enforce university regulations and (b) because they did not realise any such removal might adversely affect the Claimant’s work.  Whilst they may mistakenly have thought that they were also complying with the Claimant’s wishes, Mr Nigrin mitigated any unintended adverse effect by not removing the parts essential to such work, as he said in the covertly-recorded conversation with the Claimant.
(9)	 From about June 2001, Dr. Pervez had, I am satisfied, become thoroughly frustrated with the Claimant’s conduct as a research student.  He was plainly aware of the other problems within SBU which centred on the Claimant’s conduct in making formal complaints about other staff. When Prof. Bridge asked him to do so, he made the enquiry of Prof. Marshall against that background. Whilst he allowed his private feelings to be made clear in his emails to Prof. Marshall in a way which was unwise, it was an entirely human response to the circumstances, and was contained within confidential communications to a professional colleague.  I am satisfied that it had no effect upon Prof. Marshall’s candid expression of his view. I do not regard the phraseology he used as indicative of bad faith. He would have been pleased to be rid of the problems the Claimant presented, but that did not prevent him from behaving in an entirely proper way towards the Claimant in encouraging him to complete his transfer report.  Had the Claimant done so, I am satisfied there would have been no question of Dr Pervez obstructing him or actively seeking his exclusion.  As it was, he merely passed on Prof. Marshall’s views to Prof. Bridge, and there is no evidence to suggest that he did anything further to “get rid” of the Claimant.  The requirement to complete the Transfer Report was a university requirement.  The Claimant could and should have been able to comply with it had he been pursuing his research studies diligently in the period up to May and June 2001. Far from Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford knowing it was impossible for the Claimant to complete the report without completing his empirical work, the Claimant effectively represented to them that he was in a position to do so – in particular in the meeting on 8th August 2001. The supervisory team had included Dr. Pervez and Prof. Alford from the beginning.  They were not actively trying to have him removed from the university, but properly attempting to make him face up to his responsibilities.  There was no justification for an external supervisor for the Claimant.
(10)	Prof.  Bridge  did not act in bad faith, either (a) at a meeting on 23rd July 2001, by threatening the Claimant with withdrawal of funding and failure if he did not drop his complaint against Dr. Prothroe; or (b) in July 2001, by soliciting negative references and feedback in respect of the Claimant, in order to be able to have disciplinary proceedings instigated against him; or (c) by his memorandum dated July 2001, causing disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the Claimant that led to his exclusion, knowing his allegations against the Claimant were untrue or trivial.

330.	As to the Claimant’s own conduct, my findings of fact are as follows.

(1)	After Dr Peng’s departure, I find that he did not actively seek a replacement primary supervisor. I accept Dr Pervez’s evidence that he sought to act as a supervisor but received no response.  There is no evidence that the Claimant raised concern about a replacement primary supervisor before Dr Pervez involved Prof. Alford in May 2001. Given the abundant evidence of his regular and extensive use of email correspondence upon matters which concern him, the fact that there is no evidence of even a single email on this point is significant. 
 
(2)	During the period March – September 2001 I do not accept that the Claimant was applying himself properly to his research, in particular taking into account the need for preparation of the transfer report.  He produced no evidence, when required to do so by Prof. Alford in particular in the months following this. Instead he seems to have been pursuing matters which were distractions from it, such as complaints against others which were (rightly, in my view) found to be groundless.

(3)	I accept the evidence of Dr Pervez and Prof. Alford as to the transfer report: that it had been in or around May 2001 Dr Pervez came to him and asked if he would become actively involved with the supervision of the Claimant’s Ph.D. studies, as Dr Pervez told him he was having difficulty finding out what progress the Claimant had made and what he was doing, and he had been unable to get the Claimant to produce a Transfer Report. According to the Claimant’s transcripts, when the need to complete the transfer report was raised with him on 1 August 2001, his response was as follows: 

“AP: The idea is that we have been guided by Prof. Bridge that we should meet regularly and that this should show progress ... try to help you in whatever way that we can to enable you to complete your transfer. TB: That seems reasonable enough.  AP... the idea was that we could all look at what stage you are at, because you are in year 3 now and we should be very seriously thinking about the transfer report, Ph.D, to a Ph.D, that means you are in ... so the first thing is a transfer report, because if you don't have a transfer report then there is no question of a Ph.D. TB: Before we get onto that ... there are some procedural things that we need to cover first. How to run these meetings ... we need to cover that before we actually proceed.”
Thereafter, according to contemporaneously-gathered evidence by Dr Farwell the Claimant said he regarded the transfer report as a bureaucratic exercise

(4)	The reason for that response was that the Claimant was not in a position to submit a transfer report because he had not done the necessary work. 

(5)	That response appeared unreasonable to Prof. Alford and Dr Pervez, and, looked at objectively, was unreasonable.

Other matters

331.	The Claimant submits that Prof. Bridge testified under cross examination that ‘vitriolic’ or ‘strongly worded’ email correspondence was quite common at that time within the School. Prof. Bridge sought to describe the Claimant’s emails as ‘vitriolic’ but once having admitted that sending of such emails was at that time common he sought to re-phrase it as ‘strongly worded’. Accusing the Claimant of something that he knew to be common practice and for which he did not sanction other members of staff or research students indicates Prof. Bridge was not acting in good faith.

332.	I found Prof. Bridge a careful, restrained, and entirely straightforward witness. Whilst there were occasional sign of mild irritation during his lengthy cross-examination by the Claimant, he answered questions directly and clearly, and gave me no cause whatever to regard him as devious, dishonest, or malicious, as he was characterised by the Claimant.

333.	There is nothing in the “vitriol” point. Prof. Bridge and everyone else seem to have been prepared to put up with the discourteous wording of emails from the Claimant.  The point which Prof. Bridge was making was that the sheer volume of e-mail correspondence from the Claimant to members of staff was an unnecessary distraction for them, which, as it frequently involved apparently serious complaints, made an unjustified demand upon their time.  I reject the suggestion that his criticism of the Claimant in this respect indicated that Prof. Bridge was not acting in good faith.

334.	The Claimant submitted that Prof. Bridge stated that his ‘concerns’ regarding the Protheroe complaint had prompted him to ask all members of staff who had contact with the Claimant to put their views in writing.  Asked why he had not sought any information from his own deputy-head of school and co-director of the centre for robotics, Dr Sattar, Prof. Bridge did not dispute that he had not sought information from Dr. Sattar and did not deny he should have done so. Prof. Bridge was simply unable to provide any reason why he had not done so. The fact that Prof. Bridge actively sought views from Ian Marshall who had very little if any relation to the Claimant and who was not an employee of the university but who was known to have virulently hostile views of the Claimant while at the same time failing to solicit the views of his own deputy head and co-director who was known to have a favourable view of the Claimant shows that Prof. Bridge was not acting in good faith, the Claimant submits.

335.	 The evidence is that Prof. Bridge sought the views of a wide range of people whom he knew to have regular contact with the Claimant.   There was no evidence to show that Dr Sattar had personal experience of the Claimant’s work in the way that his supervisors and colleagues who had experience of him on a day-to-day basis. No particular reason was suggested to Prof. Bridge as to why he should have sought a reference from Dr Sattar. No evidence was canvassed at the hearing to indicate what Dr Sattar’s view would have been, still less to show that it would have counter-balanced the views which Prof. Bridge took into account. I therefore reject this submission.

336.	Prof. Bridge was challenged on the statement “where without exception all staff … felt unable to work with him …”. When shown the letter by Prof. Alford (C222) Prof. Bridge stated that it was a ‘letter for information’. When asked to locate any complaint, concern or expression of ‘feeling unable to work with’ the Claimant, Prof. Bridge claimed that Prof. Alford had used ‘coded language’. This assertion further indicates that Prof. Bridge was not acting in good faith. He was taking a letter which he himself accepts was simply a letter of information, which did not contain the criticism he expected, “and he pro-actively sought to locate that criticism in a hidden ‘code’.” This amounts, submitted the Claimant, to an admission of not acting in good faith.

337.	This point wholly ignores the fact that Prof. Alford in the memorandum at C 222 specifically said that,   “On a personal level our interaction has always been friendly but I have found Thomas to be extremely difficult to reason with.” Whether that is coded language or otherwise, its meaning is quite clear.  Prof. Alford was saying that he had a perfectly friendly relationship with the Claimant at a personal level, but when it came to matters relating to work, the Claimant was extremely difficult to reason with. University staff and students spend a great part of their time at work attempting to reason with each other.  It seems to me to be a short step from that for Prof. Bridge to conclude that Prof. Alford might have shared the general impression he had from other staff that they were unable to work with the Claimant.  It is in my view wrong to characterise this as an admission of bad faith on the part of Prof. Bridge.

338.	Referral to the Dean.  It is common ground the Claimant was involved in a dispute with Prof. Bridge in respect of the Protheroe issue. The Claimant sought to pursue his complaint as an employee, but Prof. Bridge (it is alleged by the Claimant) sought to frame the complaint as a student matter. Prof. Bridge, he submits was wrong to do this.In my view, Prof. Bridge did all that he could to deal with all matters appropriately.  The different formal complaints were separately dealt with. As Head of School, however, it was entirely appropriate for him to have regard to the Claimant’s conduct across the whole spectrum of university life when considering the appropriate action to take. In cross-examination of Prof. Bridge the Claimant attempted to confuse referrals to the Dean of Faculty (who dealt with employment issues) with referral to the Dean of Academic Affairs (who dealt with student matters.) The Claimant was well aware of the distinction in their roles.  I was not, until Prof. Bridge made it clear to me.  I considered that attempt by the Claimant to be devious and to be deliberately misleading.  In any event, the Claimant was first and foremost a Ph D student at SBU. He had (Prof. Bridge may well have concluded) shown himself to be an unsatisfactory part-time teacher, in the sense at least that unnecessary friction had been generated amongst both colleagues and students.  But the main concern of SBU was to get him to complete his Ph.D. thesis.  Prof. Bridge acted as sensibly as anyone could have expected him to act, faced with the Claimant’s obsession with procedural points.

339.	Retaliatory action. The Claimant makes many points upon the basis that Prof. Bridge  acted maliciously in regarding the Protheroe complaint as unjustified, and then retaliated by acting unfairly towards the Claimant procedurally. I find that the Protheroe complaint was a matter which, on the evidence, Prof. Bridge dealt with entirely fairly. Initially, it is clear, he was supportive of the Claimant in his early disagreements with Dr Protheroe.  When he heard all the evidence, at length, he reached an entirely justifiable conclusion. There is no evidence which justifies the charge of retaliation.

340.	 The Claimant then submits that since Ian Marshall had had no input into the Claimant’s work since late 2000, it was entirely inappropriate for Prof. Bridge to take his views into account at all. That he had done so in itself demonstrated, the Claimant submitted, that Prof. Bridge was not acting in good faith. I find that Prof. Bridge knew that Prof. Marshall had originally been involved in dealing with the Claimant as a research student.. Prof. Marshall had given a thoughtful and evidence-based assessment.  He was a respected independent figure. He confirmed the views of those who were undoubtedly still involved on a day-to-day basis with the Claimant. Upon the information available to him at the time, it was not inappropriate for Prof. Bridge to take these matters into account. 

341.	Then it is submitted by the Claimant that Prof. Bridge wrongly informed the EPSRC that Dr Xiao was the Claimant’s (first or primary) supervisor, but he also informed the Dean in a more detailed submission.   Prof. Bridge admitted in his witness statement that he had made a mistake in informing the EPSRC on 12 September 2001 that Dr Xiao had replaced Dr Peng as the 1st supervisor, and repeated this on 11 October 2001. This shows (the Claimant submits) that it was not a matter of a simple error. Prof. Bridge knew or should have known that Dr Xiao was not qualified to replace Dr Peng.  In the view of both Prof. Alford and Prof. Imhof Dr Xiao was qualified. There is only the Claimant’s assertion that he was not.  The reality, in my judgment, is that Dr Xiao, a younger man by a considerable measure than Prof. Alford, Dr Pervez, or Prof. Imhof, was less ready to be emollient in his dealings with the Claimant and less willing patiently to tolerate his confrontational attitude.  Having regard to all I saw of and heard from them both, Dr Xiao gave me the impression of being someone whom the Claimant thought might be a martinet as a supervisor, who would have been likely to have scrutinised the Claimant’s work at close quarters. This, I consider, would itself have been unwelcome to the Claimant,  and was probably a reason in itself for the Claimant not to have wanted him as a supervisor.  

342.	In any event, I did not accept that any of the Claimant’s stated grounds of objection had any validity.  These grounds varied considerably over the very short period (from about June to September) during which Dr Xiao was actively involved at all.  They included a claimed lack of qualification or experience (which the Claimant never mentioned to Dr Xiao face-to-face.)  Then there was the suggestion of personal friction (a) over borrowed equipment; and (b) over the way in which Dr Xiao spoke to him, which was the only stated objection in the transcripts of contemporaneous conversations.  Then there was the charge of mala fides which the Claimant elaborated in his closing submissions.  In summary he put it thus: “By setting himself out as a supervisor on the one hand and on the other by insisting on implementing something [removal and return of the Claimant’s equipment from the university’s computer network] that he knew would result in the Claimant’s network being dismantled and as a result leading to his research work being destroyed, Perry Xiao is acting in bad faith.”  The specious justification for this ground depends upon a selective (and misleading) reading of the part of the transcript which the Claimant cites in support.

“NA: ...there is stuff which is in the teaching lab ... ok ... and the other bits of equipment, the stuff that Thomas has bought personally, that he shouldn't have done, which he has put into computers ... now ...
PX: But, won't those things be removed like we agreed.
NA: Well, yeah, but then its going to screw up his Ph.D. .”
Quoted out of context, this might appear to be a conversation simply between Prof. Alford and Dr Xiao. It was not: the Claimant was present throughout it.   On a full reading, it is quite clear that Dr Xiao was not acting in bad faith.  He was entitled to ask for the unauthorised equipment which had been installed to be removed. That was a problem which was being discussed at the meeting, not just between Prof. Alford and Dr Xiao, but in the presence of the Claimant. It was quite clear that he did not regard this as being likely to terminate (or ‘screw up’) the Claimant’s empirical research, since this is only part of the conversation. The Claimant expressly confirmed later in the conversation, in respect of equipment, that he would –
“... take what is there at the moment. If I am short of anything I will take care of it myself. Then you don't have to worry. I am confident I can do it. Everyone is happy.” 
Dr Xiao’s observation, set in context, in context reads as follows:
NA: Then we do need to discuss equipment. Ok.
PX: Well because  ... the equipment what he has, I mean the teaching equipment, you see we don't want ...
NA: Well, I know. There is loads of equipment. There is some stuff that was acquired from the LRC, which is University equipment, but ... but there is stuff which is in the teaching lab ... ok ... and the other bits of equipment, the stuff that Thomas has bought personally, that he shouldn't have done, which he has put into computers ... now ...
PX: But, won't those things be removed like we agreed.
NA: Well, yeah, but then its going to screw up his Ph.D. .
TB: Again, it’s not so easy because as you know I built all of this network myself. Some of the things I bought myself but ... 
PX: But you [i.e. TB] see the point is that those computers are teaching facilities.
TB: As I was saying, I built this network myself and some of the items were not available at the time, so I bought them. Something like a project box. And other bits from the University were put into them. And so part of the thing is my own and part of it belongs to the University. [NA: Yeah] So, thats just a complication. Those kind of things are around. And if you want to discuss whose equipment is whose ... if you want to make things bureaucratic then there can be no end ... you can just keep going about things like that, [NA: Yeah] but if there is a will [NA: I agree] then we can just say lets draw a line and say ...
NA: Yeah, sure. But there is an issue over how you will complete the Ph.D.  with respect to equipment. So we do need to discuss that.
TB: Yes. What I mean by equipment is all the equipment: the equipment from the LRC, the teaching equipment -- all the equipment that is there at the moment.
NA: But we have never been able to resolve that in all the discussions we have had. 
TB: Thats right ... Principally I think because of lack of will. 
AP: ... it may be very difficult, this type of Ph.D.  student who cannot tell us ... you see, your write up an EPSRC case, you give them the equipment ... you don't say, 'well I don't know' ... you see, this goes along with the agreement ... every Ph.D.  person must know that part of the bargain ... now how do you do a case of like ... you can't say 'give me an open cheque' and then and when as I need I will buy it. Really we can't ...
TB: That is why I am saying I will take what is there at the moment. If I am short of anything I will take care of it myself. Then you don't have to worry. I am confident I can do it. Everyone is happy.
(Emphasis added. )
331.	In a closing comment in cross examination Prof. Alford admitted that he had ‘badgered’ the Claimant in respect of his transfer report. In the circumstances this, the Claimant said, was essentially an admission of bad faith, suggested by Prof. Alford’s subsequent comment of ‘oops, perhaps I shouldn’t have said that’. In my view it is not merely the right of a supervisor to badger a dilatory student to produce an essay or other piece of work reasonably required as part of his course of studies:  it is his duty. Prof. Alford, I am satisfied, thought it was his duty to badger the Claimant to produce evidence of his work: that was for the Claimant’s own good. I do not accept that Prof. Alford knew that the empirical part of the Claimant’s research was being blocked, and so was making an impossible request.  He wanted evidence of the theoretical work which was to be tested by the empirical work, as much as evidence of the empirical work for the transfer report. Prof. Alford was not asking the Claimant to do something he knew was impossible.  The fact that Prof. Alford ‘badgered’ the Claimant to produce his transfer report is the very opposite of evidence of bad faith.  If he had been acting in bad faith all that he needed to do was to leave the Claimant to his own devices, in the expectation that the Claimant would never produce the transfer report.

332.	In conclusion, having considered every point made by the Claimant on the evidence I am not persuaded that the Defendant University by any of its staff acted in bad faith towards the Claimant.  On the contrary, each member of staff who dealt with the Claimant showed considerable reserves of patience and tolerance in the face of his frequently unreasonable behaviour. There was no conspiracy between Dr Pervez and Prof. Bridge.   This action therefore fails on that ground.

Causation

333.	Given the evidence which is not in dispute as to the matters investigated by Dr Farwell, however, it does not seem to me that any different conclusion would have been reached so far as exclusion was concerned, even if there had been bad faith.

334.	 If I am wrong in my view that none of the Defendant’s employees have been proved to have shown bad faith in their dealings with the Claimant, and if there were clear evidence of bad faith by SBU, the point then taken by the Defendant University was that, in any event, it would not follow that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant in respect of any breach. When considering liability any breaches proved against the Defendant would fall to be assessed in the context of any findings made against the Claimant in respect of his unreasonable behaviour and the likelihood he would have completed his Ph.D.  in any event. 

335.	The university submits that the Claimant was unable to show evidence of any significant progress in his research work since passing his 10 month report. The timetable in the 10 month report showed that the Claimant should have started his empirical work in mid-2000. The Claimant accepted that he completed building the Network in October 2000. Under cross examination he was unable to point to any contemporaneous evidence of work he had undertaken between October 2000 and May 2001, when he claimed his work began to be obstructed. Instead he relied on a paper he said he had written in 2002 as evidence of his empirical work  It was not clear how this paper provided evidence of his work two years previously, and the comment was made that the paper was not accepted by the conference to which it had been submitted,  and the reviews were less than enthusiastic. In his oral evidence the Claimant confirmed that his research plan was set out in his email to Professor Alford dated 21st June 2001. That say the defendants,, is plainly “a grandiose and totally impractical plan,” involving a “research group” and “possibly a number of Ph.D’s”. It would clearly involve resources that would never be available to a Ph.D.  student on a limited budget. 

336.	The Claimant’s evidence was that his initial Director of Studies, Dr. Peng, agreed to a project of this scope and magnitude. It is submitted it is inconceivable this is true. In Professor Alford’s memorandum to Prof. Bridge dated 25th July 2001 he says:

“Today I contacted Dr. Peng by phone and asked him to email explaining how he viewed the situation as regards Thomas’ Ph.D. . By phone, Dr. Peng noted the original doctorate work was intended to be a simulation study that needed only one computer and the relevant software but this was extended to include some experimental verification by using a small network. Dr. Peng never viewed the networking of more than a few computers were necessary.”

Dr. Peng confirmed this in an email to Professor Alford on the same day [D225], in which he stated:

“…demanding a large number of computers for this purpose was unrealistic because this would occupy most of the resources we had in the laboratory, which should be mainly for teaching-related activity.”

337.	It is therefore  submitted the Claimant’s misconceived insistence that he had been authorised to embark on this grandiose project coupled with the lack of any progress in his research work, makes it unlikely he was ever going to achieve a Ph.D.  regardless of whether the Defendant had breached any of its contractual obligations towards him or not. For the reasons given by the Defendant University, I agree with this submission also, and the case fails on this ground as well.

338.	I decided at the trial that there should be effectively a two-stage trial on liability and quantum, since the evidence on quantum was in a far from clear state.  In the light of this decision no further hearing is necessary.