Editing Oxford University Press (section)

===Malcolm vs. Oxford University 1986–1992===
In 1990, in the UK Court of Appeal, author [[Andrew Malcolm (author)|Andrew Malcolm]] won a landmark legal judgment against Oxford University (Press) for its breach of a contract to publish his philosophical text ''Making Names''. Reporting on the verdict in ''The Observer'', Laurence Marks wrote, "It is the first time in living memory that [[Grub Street]] has won such a victory over its oppressors".<ref>[http://www.akmedea.com/marks1.jpg Laurence Marks, 'A builder's dialogue that silenced OUP', The Observer, 23 December 1990]</ref> The Appeal Court judges were highly critical of Oxford's conduct of the affair and the litigation. Lord Justice Mustill declared, "The Press is one of the longest-established publishing houses in the United Kingdom, and no doubt in the world. They must have been aware from the outset that the absence of agreement on the matters in question [the book's print-run and format] was not, in the trade, regarded as preventing a formal agreement from coming into existence. Candour would, I believe, have required that this should have been made clear to the judge and ourselves, rather than a determined refusal to let the true position come to light... This is not quite all. I do not know whether an outsider studying the history of this transaction and of this litigation would feel that, in his self-financed struggle with the assembled Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford the appellant has had a fair crack of the whip. I certainly do not... Mr Charkin took the decision [to renege on the OUP editor's contract], not because he thought the book was no good - he had never seen it and the reports were favourable - but because he thought it would not sell. Let there be no mistake about it, the failure of this transaction was about money, not prestige. Nor does the course of the litigation give any reason to suppose that the Press had any interest but to resist the claim, no matter on what grounds, so long as they succeeded."<ref name="Appeal">[http://www.akmedea.com/jdgmtca.html Court of Appeal judgement and order, 18 December 1990, CHF0480/90]</ref> Lord Justice Leggatt added: "It is difficult to know what the Deputy Judge (Lightman) meant by a 'firm commitment' other than an intention to create legal relations. Nothing short of that would have had any value whatever for Mr Malcolm... To suggest that Mr Hardy intended to induce Mr Malcolm to revise the book by giving him a valueless assurance would be tantamount to an imputation of fraud... It follows that in my judgment when Mr Hardy used the expressions 'commitment' and 'a fair royalty' he did in fact mean what he said; and I venture to think that it would take a lawyer to arrive at any other conclusion. There was therefore an enforceable contract for the publication of Mr Malcolm's book... The Respondents' final statement may be thought unworthy of them."<ref name="Appeal" />

The case ended in July 1992 with a Tomlin order, a damages settlement under which the servants and agents of Oxford University are permanently barred from denigrating Malcolm or ''Making Names'', rendering it the first book in literary history to be afforded such legal protection.<ref name="Baty">[http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/167385.article Phil Baty, 'Whistleblowers', The Times Higher Education Supplement, 22 February 2002] '</ref><ref name="Baty1">[http://www.akmedea.com/2K1whsl1.html Phil Baty, 'Whistleblowers', THES article on the akmedea website] '</ref><ref name="Tomlin">{{cite web|url=http://www.akmedea.com/xA210.html|title=Malcolm v Oxford: settlement agreement 1/7/92|website=www.akmedea.com}}</ref> The case was reported to have cost Oxford over £500,000.<ref>[http://www.akmedea.com/privteye.jpg Books and Bookmen column, Private Eye, 15 January 1993]</ref>