An Oxford academic who claimed his landmark peanut allergy research was stolen by a colleague has won his legal battle against the university.
Dr. Amin Moghaddam, a senior scientist at the esteemed Oxford University, accused an eminent professor of plagiarising his innovative research findings which suggested that dry roasted peanuts were more likely to trigger allergic reactions than raw peanuts.
Regarding the research paper in question, Dr. Moghaddam accused Professor Quentin Sattentau of claiming to be the lead author when it had in fact been the other way around.
Dr. Moghaddam also argued that due to his flagging of this incident, that he had not received the credit he was due, had not been supported in his attempts at promotion and also failed to secure funding research.
Dr Amin Moghaddam (left), 54, claims he was the brains behind a ground-breaking 2014 study and that Professor Quentin Sattentau (right) had unfairly claimed credit for his research after naming himself as the lead author of the scientific paper
Additionally, owing to his failure to secure adequate funding and a souring of relations following the plagiarism allegations, Dr. Moghaddams 16 year tenure at Oxford University was ended in March of 2019.
In the aftermath of his leaving the university, Dr. Moghaddam took the University of Oxford to an employment tribunal. There, he claimed that he had been dismissed unfairly and that he had experienced race, disability and whistleblowing discrimination.
Despite initial findings from the tribunal which stated he had not been unfairly dismissed and that the university simply didnt have the funding to support him, the decision has now been overturned by Judge Murray Shanks who said that the original panels ruling cannot be supported.
Judge Shanks stated; I bear in mind the need to give a fair and generous reading to the tribunals reasons but I have come to the view that their conclusion on this part of the case cannot be supported.
In my view this ground of appeal succeeds and the case will need to be remitted to the tribunal to consider whether Dr. Moghaddams claim of procedural unfair dismissal succeeds and (if so) what compensation he is entitled to.
Judge Shanks further concluded that the breakdown in the relationship with Professor Sattentau had not been considered as a factor in dismissal by the original tribunal.
The case will now be re-heard with Dr. Moghaddam having already succeeded in two of his four grounds of appeal.