Did Warwick University vice-chancellor pursue whistle-blower?

Warwick University, Professor Stuart Croft, evaded to account for the trumped up claim of misconduct he levelled at whistle-blower Professor Kostakopoulou in order to suspend her for four months.

It looks as if the University of Warwick seeks to impose a charging order of £75,000 on Professor Kostakopoulou’s property via a County Court action even though the County Court does not have jurisdiction to do so.

Their effort to extort unlawful costs from Kostakopoulou is aimed at forcing her to discontinue the employment tribunal litigation for victimisation and wrongful and unfair dismissal.

The Professor caused the wistleblower health injuries, which he could never substantiate in a court of law, owing to the abetment of the Regional Employment Judge, Lorna Findlay, and EJ Camp of Midlands West Employment Tribunal, has employed Leamington Spa based solicitor firm Wright/Hassall to pursue legal costs, following ‘whistleblower Kostakopoulou libel, malicious falsehood and breach of human rights legal action against Professor Christine Ennew, Provost, Andrew Sanders, Andy Lavender and Diana Opik’.

Absence of fair hearing?

The whistleblower Prof. Kostakopoulou believes she ‘did not receive a fair hearing at the London High Court’ (j. Sir Nicol).

Lack of examination, by the judge, of the documents provided

In the documents filed with the High Court, Kostakopoulou provided substantial, if not overwhelming, evidence ‘of the false and fraudulent allegations against her designed to destroy her reputation and career’.

Sir Nicol knew that Mr Tim Smith, the University of Warwick’s legal representative, ‘had lied and that Mr Richard Munden, Counsel for the respondents, had made misleading submissions’.

Yet, the judge completely ignored these in his written decision, including failing to account for the substantial evidence Kostakopoulou put before him, much like he did in the Jonny Depp libel case.

Overall, Sir Nicol had given the impression that ‘purposely failed to assess Kostakopoulou’s legal claims and documentary evidence’ and eventually made findings ‘unsupported by any material evidence’.

Threat to impose a civil restraining!

In the process leading up to the preliminary hearing in October 2021, Mr Justice Nicklin (the Judge in charge of the Media and Communications list) threatened to impose a civil restraining order should Kostakopoulou renew her application for the disclosure of information which would prove her innocence.

This media has written about this case in previous posts (click HERE).

At the same time, the University of Warwick not only had failed to comply with the pre-action protocol but also the appointed legal representative Tim Smith (formerly of BLM, Clyde & Co, but now at law firm dwf), had breached the civil procedure requirement of disclosure of crucial material information he very well knew would prove Kostakopoulou’s claim that the University and the Defendants (Professors Ennew, Sanders and Lavender and Ms Opik) had libelled her.

Even though Professor Kostakopoulou appealed against Sir Nicol’s decision and the violations of her rights to the Court of Appeal, which twice did not make a costs order against Kostakopoulou, Professor Croft believes he has the right to augment the injustice levelled at her through the pursuit of retaliatory and intimidatory costs in May 2023.

Sexual Harassments and accusations from female students

Professor Croft should be mindful of the accusation levelled at him by Warwick University female students of failing to protect females.

Women who say they were raped and sexually harassed at the university say toxic culture has not be addressed. (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/04/warwick-vice-chancellor-failed-to-protect-female-students-say-victims).

In Kostakopoulou’s case, it has become most evident that neither ethics, the truth, justice, nor women’s human and employment rights matter to him.

The above provide a picture that blends actions of Professor Stuart Croft, his executive and related University of Warwick management impression that they  are entitled to encourage a harassment behaviour.

The big question is, in an era of increasing accountability, is it still acceptable to fabricate a false narrative aand to engage in what many believe to be unethical behaviour that engages dirty tactics, smear campaigns, and underhanded manoeuvrings to threaten and harm respected academic, members of University staff who merely sought the protection of the law to counter the false allegations?

These are open questions that need to be addressed with integrity. Whistleblowers should be protected, instead of being sued by rich managers. The unethical tactics of suing whistleblowers, exercised by Professor Croft, Warwick University, and anobody else, is  fundamental threat for the  values of Universities, our society and our democracy.