Did High Court Judge cover up the falsehoods of management at Warwick University? The case of whistle-blower Kostakopoulou.
A law professor and whistle-blower Kostakopoulou brought London High Court Case against Warwick University for libel, malicious falsehood and human rights violations.
Professor Kostakopoulou, an internationally recognised professor of European Law and Policy, was suspended from Warwick University, having been accused by Prof Christine Ennew, OBE, Provost, and Prof Andrew Sanders, Head of Warwick University Law School, after raising a formal grievance against them for unlawful and unethical conduct. The suspension of Kostakopoulou imposed considerable damage on her students who were instructed to take alternative courses.
1. Justice denied Prof Kostakopoulou material information that would prove her innocence
Professor Kostakopoulou’s complaints about breaches of human rights and primary EU law, including the EU general principles of proportionality and the right to be heard, were struck out without being examined and mentioned in the judgment!
Despite ‘presenting unquestionable evidence confuting the vexatious and malicious falsehoods’ levelled at her by Professor Christine Ennew, OBE, Provost of Warwick University, Professor Andrew Sanders, Head of Warwick University Law School, and ‘the refutable lies contained in Professor Andy Lavender’s (now Vice-Principle and Director of Production Arts at London Guild-Hall School of Music & Drama) report’ at a strikeout hearing on October 18-19 2021 before Mr Justice Nichol, notwithstanding the perfidious account of Mr Tim Smith, BLM Law, legal representative of Warwick University, and ‘the misleading statement’ of Mr Richard Munden, counsel for the respondents, combined with the unlawful decision of Mr Justice Nicklin to deny Prof Kostakopoulou material information that would prove her innocence and thus exonerate her of the malicious falsehoods, Mr Justice Nicol in his overly one-sided and unbalanced decision in which he gave no weight whatsoever to the imperious insurmountable documentary evidence provided by Kostakopoulou, and without any reasonable justification ended the breach of human rights and defamation lawsuit of Professor Kostakopoulou.
All that mattered for Mr Justice Nicol was accepting Mr Munden’s argument that by signing a contract of employment with Warwick University, Professor Kostakopoulou had given her implied consent to being bullied and defamed! Indeed, this cannot be correct – human dignity is an inviolable human right that knows no limitations. And certainly, no contract of employment can override or disregard the bedrock standards embodied in human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and data protection legislation which contains specific provisions on consent.
By overlooking the voluminous substantive evidence that justified Kostakopoulou’s libel and malicious falsehood action against Ennew and Sanders, Mr Justice Nicol seemed keen to end the case prematurely without even a Defence from the University of Warwick and the Defendants and due regard to Kostakopoulou’s right to access to justice and effective judicial protection.
Mr Justice Nicol sidestepped the Defendants’ non-compliance with the mandatory pre-action protocol, breaches of the civil procedure rules, Mr Tim Smith refusing to make admissions when served with several notices to admit facts under CPR r 32.18 and failing to comply with the prohibition of false and misleading statements to a court of law.
It is evident from a reading of the overall decision that Mr Justice Nichol ‘did not ground his conclusion on any of the detailed documentary evidence specific to the vexatious and malicious statements of Ennew, Sanders and Lavender and the University of Warwick’s failure to follow its procedures and to act lawfully and fairly’.
The facts had been established before Mr Justice Nichol that the Defendants had libelled Kostakopoulou and had acted knowing that their allegations were false.
They had subjected an innocent person to a dehumanising suspension and had abused her rights with impunity for a considerable period.
2. No evidence of complaint presented by the management against the professor
Mr Munden never presented any evidence of any student complaint – in fact, in his closing statements, he argued that ‘the Student Complaint Procedure had not been followed because this was not a student complaint’, which only serves to demonstrate the UK Courts and Tribunal’s determination to cover up the wrongdoing of Warwick University executives and management to ensure that Kostakopoulou is deprived of justice at all levels of the justice system.
An innocent whistleblower was harassed, falsely accused and maligned by the University of Warwick’s executives, and when she brought legal complaints about unlawful conduct in good faith and expected to receive a fair, unbiased hearing at the Birmingham Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and the High Court, she has ended up instead fighting the justice system which, as court documents seen by this media show, has manoeuvred to silence her, protecting law-breaking executives and to block her attempts to obtain justice. They did so following the Brexit referendum when they denied more than 18 applications Professor Kostakopoulou submitted to Courts and Tribunals to direct Warwick University and Professor Stuart Croft to particularise their absurd bullying allegations.
3. Professor Kostakopoulou spokesperson’s statements
Following Mr Justice Nicol’s decision, a spokesperson for Kostakopoulou said: “We are not surprised by Justice Nicols’s decision. It amounts to more of the same decision by Courts and Tribunals to cover up the unlawful conduct of Warwick University’s senior executives and management. The Courts and Tribunals merely did the same as they did in the parent case by covering up the lies of Professor Stuart Croft, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Warwick, Professor Rebecca Probert, and Mrs Gillian McGrattan. The evidence presented by Kostakopoulou, as it was then and now, was overwhelming and indisputable. But what we have discovered over the lengthy period in which the cases have been kicked around in the system is the twisting and manipulating of the law by those responsible for its administration to suit their motives on behalf of the wrongdoers.”
This media understands that Professor Kostakopoulou will continue her quest for justice despite all the obstructions of justice and the legalised normlessness she has encountered. No one is above the law in liberal democratic orders, and no one has the right to deny a person’s fundamental rights, the rights to human dignity and non-discrimination and truth and justice.
Other info and sources
See more info about the case and the whistleblower at
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/birmingham-post/20210114/281646782781761,
https://twitter.com/johahase/status/1049571570295996417?lang=de
new-economy.gr
