In a decision of interest for employment practitioners, the Federal Court has rejected a claim by a PhD candidate of the University of Sydney alleging that a contract of employment was created between himself and the University when he accepted an “Australian Postgraduate Award” (later, “Research Training Program”) scholarship, which was conditional upon enrolment in a Higher Degree by Research (HDR) which comprises at least two-thirds independent research work.
Dr Burt, who commenced the claim as a representative proceeding on behalf of recipients of the relevant scholarship at the University, argued that the students’ promise to undertake and complete research work, and thus maintain enrolment in an HDR, constituted work performed for the University in return for the payment of a stipend. In particular, he contended that the research required under an HDR must culminate in a product consisting of new knowledge and thus conferred a benefit on the University by assisting it to give effect to its statutory purpose of facilitating the creation of knowledge by research.
In rejecting the characterisation of the scholarship contract as a contract “of service”, Lee J held that a candidate’s enrolment in an HDR is best characterised as a voluntary undertaking by the student to complete a course of study in research in furtherance of their own education, with the objective of obtaining a qualification, rather than for the purpose of rendering service for the University. Conversely, the scholarship payments were properly characterised as a form of financial support to enable HDR students to complete their educational endeavour, rather than as a reward for services in the nature of remuneration. It was thus unrealistic to conclude that, as a matter of objective intention, the research work was performed in consideration for, or in return for, the stipend so as to give it the character of an employment contract.
Robert Dick SC, Sebastian Hartford Davis and Bronte Lambourne appeared for the University.