The University of Liverpool has been formally brought into the legal action in which parents are seeking compensation from Alder Hey hospital, where thousands of organs were removed from the bodies of children without consent.

The university employed Dick van Velzen, who stockpiled body parts over a period of seven years when he held the post of chairman of foetal and infant pathology.

The report into the scandal, produced last year by a committee chaired by Sir Michael Redfern, described Professor van Velzen as a maverick and recommended that he should never practise again.

It also criticised the university for not accepting any responsibility and for leaving Alder Hey to make a series of mistakes.

"Alder Hey and the university missed numerous opportunities to discipline Prof van Velzen for justifiable reasons from 1989 onwards," said the report.

Alder Hey's legal move was welcomed by Ian Cohen, lead solicitor in the action in which 800 parents are making claims against the hospital.

"One of the most frustrating aspects of this affair has been the failure of the university to hold up its hands and accept responsibility," said Mr Cohen.

"Now it is going to be held responsible, one way or another."

He claimed the university had held an internal inquiry. However, he said, "if it has reported, we have not been told when, or what the report said."

The parents are not taking action directly against the university; Alder Hey, having seen their claims, went to court to have the university included as an additional defendant.

If the parents' action is successful, the hospital would in turn claim against the university.

Prof van Velzen's job was spilt almost equally between the university and the hospital. He could have removed organs either as a hospital clinician or as a university researcher.

The parents' strategy at present is to focus on the hospital, where the organs were removed. They argue that if there are any extra responsibilities, that is a matter for the hospital.

In a statement yesterday, the university confirmed that it had been brought into the action.

"This technical step was necessary because the university was not included in the litigation when it began, and makes it possible for the court, should it eventually find that there is any legal liability, to apportion responsibility between the [hospital] and the university without a second action being required," said the statement.