A marine scientist was unlawfully sacked by James Cook University (JCU) in north Queensland for criticising his colleagues' research on the impacts of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia has ruled.

Key points: Judge Sal Vasta wrote in his judgment that the university had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom"

Judge Sal Vasta wrote in his judgment that the university had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom" Dr Ridd told the ABC he was "very happy" with the judgment as it had vindicated everything he had done

Dr Ridd told the ABC he was "very happy" with the judgment as it had vindicated everything he had done In a statement, JCU Provost Professor Chris Cocklin disagreed with the judge and said the university was "considering its options"

Peter Ridd was dismissed by James Cook University (JCU) last year after being issued with a number of warnings for comments he made about a lead coral researcher and for telling Sky TV that organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) could "no longer be trusted".

Court documents said Dr Ridd described his colleague in an email as "not having any clue about the weather", and that he "will give the normal doom science about the Great Barrier Reef".

Dr Ridd said in another email that JCU, along with other universities, were "Orwellian in nature".

In his judgment, Judge Sal Vasta found Dr Ridd's termination was unlawful, as JCU's enterprise agreement protected his comments over and above the university's code of conduct.

"It is actually [Clause 14] that is the lens through which the behaviour of Professor Ridd must be viewed," Judge Vasta wrote.

"To use the vernacular, the University has 'played the man and not the ball'.

"Clause 14 means that it is the right of Professor Ridd to say what he has said in any manner that he likes, so long as he does not contravene the sanctions embedded in cl.14 — that is at the heart of intellectual freedom."

Judge Vasta wrote that the university had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom".

"In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset.

"It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth."

Dr Ridd to seek reinstatement

Dr Ridd told the ABC he was "very happy" with the judgment as it had vindicated everything he had done.

"The case started about my comments about the quality of some of the Great Barrier Reef science … and it sort of ended up in an academic freedom case," Dr Ridd said.

Dr Ridd said he stood by his comments.

"I'm not saying that all the science is wrong — I'm just saying because there isn't enough checking, testing and replicating of that science it's difficult to know what is right and wrong," Dr Ridd said.

Dr Ridd said he would be seeking reinstatement at the university.

National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) vice-president Andrew Bonnell said it was clear the university had breached its commitment to academic freedom.

"Even if someone is saying something unpopular, if you have a scientist or other academic speaking — especially on the matter related to their expertise — then they have a right to represent unpopular opinions, even if some people find it annoying," Mr Bonnell said.

'Never gagged or silenced'

In a statement, JCU Provost Professor Chris Cocklin disagreed with the judge and said the university was "considering its options".

"[We] are also troubled by the fact that he fails to refer to any legal precedent or case law in Australia to support his interpretation of our enterprise agreement, or academic freedom in Australian employment law," the statement said.

Provost Professor Cocklin maintained in the statement that Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his "scientific views".

"Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced," the statement said.

"We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's, nor any other employee's, rights to academic freedom.

"What was in issue was how to he communicated about others, how he denigrated others, and how he breached confidentiality, which impacted not only on him, but on others."

A penalty hearing for the university will be set for a later date.