AISLES - Australian Law Network
 ·   ·  20 posts

  • A

    B

    A
    609 friends

Academic freedom in the Federal Court: what a professor's new claim against her university will test

A law professor says she has sued Adelaide University in the Federal Court over her workplace rights to academic freedom and free speech. Nothing is proven and the university has not yet responded in court. We explain the claims and the law, including the High Court's Ridd decision.

A law professor at Adelaide University has started proceedings against the university in the Federal Court of Australia. She says the case is about her workplace rights to academic freedom and free speech. Nothing in her claim has been tested or proven, and the university has not yet filed a defence or had its say in court. This post explains what has been claimed, what the university has said, and the legal rules the Court is likely to apply, including the High Court's leading academic freedom decision, Ridd v James Cook University [2021] HCA 32.

Why it matters: Australian universities must have policies that protect academic freedom, and many enterprise agreements protect it too. Cases that test where those protections stop are rare. The answer matters to every academic who speaks publicly, and to every university that has to deal with complaints about what its staff say.

At a glance

  • Who: Dr Joanna Howe, a professor in Adelaide University's law school, and the university. Law360 reports that some senior staff are also named.
  • Where: The Federal Court of Australia. She says she filed on 26 October 2026.
  • What she alleges: That the university breached her workplace rights to academic freedom and free speech. Media reports say the claim relies on the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and her employment contract.
  • The university's position: Before the filing, the university said it was taking the matter "very seriously" but had not been given any court documents and could not comment.
  • Status: No hearing has happened, and no facts have been found. The court file number, pleadings and the orders she is seeking were not public when this post was written.

📣 What has been claimed

Everything in this section is Dr Howe's account. None of it has been proven, and the university has not yet answered it in court.

  • In a post on X on 26 October 2026, she said she had filed proceedings against the university in the Federal Court that day, for breaching her workplace rights to academic freedom and free speech.
  • She says that since November 2025 she has faced multiple investigations and legal letters, and more than 200 allegations and sub-allegations.
  • She says the allegations are about opinions she has expressed on abortion, transgender issues, Islam and consent, not about her teaching or research.
  • She says the university is treating her views as unacceptable because they depart from what she calls a "leftwing orthodoxy".
  • Media reports say an investigation began in November 2025 after a complaint from someone outside the university, and that her court documents allege breaches of the Fair Work Act and of her employment contract.
  • Reports also say that in 2024 the Fair Work Commission dealt with an earlier dispute between her and the university. The university reportedly accepted the Commission's recommendation that she did not need to follow certain corrective actions and that no further action would be taken.

🏛️ The university's position

  • The Advertiser reported on 23 October 2026, before the filing, that a Deputy Vice-Chancellor said the university was taking the matter "very seriously" but had "not been provided with any court documents and is unable to comment".
  • In September 2026, responding to a separate public controversy, the university said that, consistent with its legal obligations, including privacy, confidentiality and procedural fairness, it does not comment on individual staff matters or views.
  • As of 27 October 2026, AISLES could not find any further public statement from the university about the Federal Court claim.
  • The university will be able to file a defence and put its own evidence about why it acted as it did. AISLES will update this post if the university responds.

⚖️ Analysis

The legal framework

The pleadings aren't public, so we don't yet know exactly which laws she relies on. Based on the media reports, these are the rules most likely to matter.

  • Enterprise agreement clauses. Most university enterprise agreements contain an academic or intellectual freedom clause. Under the Fair Work Act, breaching a term of an enterprise agreement (s 50) can lead to court orders and penalties. That was the route taken in Ridd.
  • General protections. An employer must not take "adverse action" against an employee because the employee has a "workplace right" (s 340). A workplace right includes being entitled to a benefit under a workplace instrument, such as an enterprise agreement (s 341). Adverse action includes injuring an employee in their employment, or changing their position to their disadvantage (s 342). Separate protections cover adverse action because of attributes such as religion or political opinion (s 351). It isn't yet known whether she relies on any of these.
  • The reverse onus. In a general protections case, once the employee proves that adverse action was taken and alleges why, the law presumes that the action was taken for that reason unless the employer proves otherwise (s 361). In Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE v Barclay [2012] HCA 32, the High Court said the question is why the decision-maker acted, judged by their actual reasons at the time ([44]–[45], [127]). Credible evidence from the decision-maker can discharge the onus, and without that evidence the presumption is very hard to displace.
  • The employment contract. Reports say she also alleges breach of contract. Whether university policies or the enterprise agreement form part of the contract will depend on the documents.
  • The federal policy requirement. Under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth), universities must have a policy that upholds freedom of speech and academic freedom (s 19-115). The Act's definition of academic freedom includes staff expressing opinions and contributing to public debate "in relation to their subjects of study and research". On its face, this section requires the university to have a policy. It does not itself give staff a right to sue, but a policy can matter if a contract or agreement relies on it.

What the Court must decide

These are the likely questions. The real issues will depend on the pleadings and the university's defence.

  • Which enterprise agreement and policies applied at the relevant times? A new Adelaide University Enterprise Agreement 2026 was approved by the Fair Work Commission in October 2026, so the timing may matter.
  • What does the academic freedom clause actually protect, and what does it exclude? For example, the University of Adelaide Enterprise Agreement 2023–2025 defines academic freedom as the freedom to engage in critical enquiry, intellectual discourse and public controversy "without fear or favour". It excludes harassment, intimidation, vilification and malicious damage to the university's reputation. It also says staff will not be disciplined for misconduct where they exercise academic freedom in line with the clause.
  • Do the statements complained of fall inside or outside that protection?
  • Is starting and running investigations, as opposed to an outcome such as a warning or dismissal, "adverse action" or a breach of the agreement or contract? That will turn on the facts.
  • If adverse action is proven, can the university show that its decision-makers acted for reasons other than the protected ones?
  • If any breach is proven, what remedy is appropriate?

The lesson from Ridd

Ridd is the High Court's leading word on academic freedom clauses. It was decided under a different university's agreement, so its outcome doesn't predict this case. Its reasoning will still be important.

  • The High Court held that the intellectual freedom clause in James Cook University's agreement "is not a general freedom of speech" ([5]). It protected expression within an academic's field of competence, and it required disagreement with university decisions to follow the processes the agreement set out ([5], [65]).
  • The Court also said genuine intellectual freedom must allow expression that departs from civil norms of courtesy and respect. A clause that protects that freedom isn't automatically limited by codes of conduct requiring respect or courtesy ([33], [64]).
  • Even so, Dr Ridd lost overall. His dismissal was upheld because of serious misconduct findings, including breaches of confidentiality directions, that the clause did not protect ([65]).
  • The practical lesson is that the wording of the particular clause matters most. It sets which topics are protected, which processes must be followed, and which limits apply.

🔜 What happens next

  • The university will be served and can file a defence.
  • The Court will usually list the matter for a first case management hearing, set a timetable, and may refer the parties to mediation.
  • Many cases like this settle or narrow before trial. If it goes to trial, the Court will hear evidence from both sides and decide the facts.
  • Until then, all of Dr Howe's claims remain allegations, and the university's reasons for its actions have not yet been put before the Court.

💡 Take-Home Lesson

  • Read your own clause. In Australia, academic freedom at work usually comes from your enterprise agreement, contract and university policy, not from a general right to free speech.
  • Scope and process matter. Protection often depends on whether you were speaking in your field and whether you followed the required processes.
  • Employers must explain their reasons. In a general protections case, the employer has to prove why it acted. Clear, contemporaneous reasons matter.
  • Allegations are not findings. Media coverage and social media posts tell one side of a story. The Court will decide the facts.
Academic freedom at work is usually only as wide as the clause that grants it, and in a general protections case the employer has to be able to prove why it acted.

📚 Sources

This post is general information about a court case that has just started and a published judgment. It is not legal advice, and it does not suggest that any allegation is true or untrue. For advice about your own situation, speak to a lawyer, Legal Aid or a community legal centre.

SSL Certificates