Was Whistleblower’s hearing hijacked? Kostakopoulou case reloaded – part 2

Intro to the hearing

Before the commencement of Kostakopoulou’s hearing at Midland West Employment Tribunal – Birmingham Employment Tribunal (BET) on Monday, July 24, 2023, in an Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing presided by Mr Justice Simon Auerbach against a decision of EJ Broughton, Kostakopoulou requested the transfer of her cases from Birmingham Employment Tribunal to a different Tribunal as there had been considerable obstruction of disclosure and delays by judges appointed by Lorna Findlay, the Regional Employment Judge.

To allay Kostakopoulou’s concerns, Mr Justice Auerbach assured Kostakopoulou that fundamental rights would not be violated and that she would receive a fair hearing at BET.

What transpired over the four-day hearing at BET and the subsequent decision of EJ Perry, delivered on Wednesday, August 2, 2023, without there being formal merits hearing as Kostakopoulou had expected, disavowed the declaration given to Kostakopoulou by Mr Auerbach.

Description of the hearing, Part 2 of 2

In further submissions and in direct response to Reindorf, Kostakopoulou defended her right to appeal decisions where there are errors of law and highlighted with reference to documents in the bundle the many instances of the respondents’ non-compliance with the BET’s orders and directions. She also added that Reindorf had falsely suggested to EJ Camp at the 8^th case management hearing when she attempted to strike out her claim that it would not be surprising if Kostakopoulou did not turn up for the ET hearing. Yet Kostakopoulou was sitting in court to argue her case.

Reindorf submitted that Kostakopoulou was vexatious and had challenged the court’s authority several times by bringing repeated appeals. Reindorf further noted that it was likely that Kostakopoulou would appeal some of Mr Perry’s decisions and that his questioning of Kostakopoulou reflected that she would. But EJ Perry said that although he understood Reindorf’s position, the legal system does allow Kostakopoulou to appeal decisions, not that he agreed with it, that is, how the system functions, he noted.

Reindorf then regurgitated the grounds of her previous strike-out application and then focused on the related correspondence after EJ Camp’s hearing. She quoted parts of the correspondence without presenting the context or Kostakopoulou’s specific replies and applications.

Kostakopoulou’s submissions were on Thursday, 27 July. She distributed to the panel the email communications and letters which showed that the respondents had not cooperated in agreeing on the bundle, had refused to keep the tribunal DE bundle intact and knew since September 2022 that there would be two trial bundles, one from the Claimant and one from the Respondents.

Kostakopoulou also told the judge that she would have liked to inform the respondents that she was preparing an integrated bundle, but EJ Camp had written an order which prevented her from doing so. Kostakopoulou then proceeded to pinpoint the serial non-compliance with ET’s orders by the Respondents, including the non-compliance on producing an agreed list of issues in claim 2 which started in early February 2023 and had continued until June 2023. Kostakopoulou said that she had written to BET on 1 and 3 July 2023, presenting the evidence – communications which EJ Broughton had not acknowledged.

EJ Perry asked Reindorf whether she had any response or further submissions to make, and she mentioned that Kostakopoulou had made statements about Browne under the Malicious Communication Act 1998. Kostakopoulou replied that Reindorf’s grasp of the facts was inaccurate. EJ Perry asked Kostakopoulou: “Are you saying that Ms Reindorf is lying”. Kostakopoulou replied yes, and invited Reindorf to evidence her allegations to the court, which she could not. EJ Perry did not press Reindorf for the supporting evidence Kostakopoulou requested but quickly brushed it over.

EJ Perry concluded the day’s hearing by noting that the hearing would not convene on Friday, July 28 and that the parties should avail themselves of his strike-out decision on Friday afternoon.

On resumption of the hearing on Wednesday, 2 August 2023 (- there were no hearings on Friday, Monday and Tuesday), EJ Perry announced that “the respondents’ application to strike out the claim is granted” because he considered the conduct of Kostakopoulou scandalous, which he argued was due to Kostakopoulou’s refusal to accept the decision of judges, attempting to talk over him when seeking to press her points of argument, looking at the clock, and looking through her papers.

EJ Perry also noted that he felt Kostakopoulou had sought to ambush the respondents’ representative by delivering her bundle to them three working days before the hearing, which he considered not serving the overriding objective. EJ Perry seemed overly keen to make several negative statements about Kostakopoulou, which is common among Tribunal judges when providing written decisions on the claims of female claimants (secondary victimisation). This was highlighted in a report Kostakopoulou had provided to the House of Commons Justice Committee.

This media understands that Kostakopoulou has appeals pending at the Employment Appeal Tribunal against the decisions of EJ Camp and EJ Broughton, who, on 27 February 2023, saw physical evidence of Kostakopoulou’s innocence and suppressed it. As such a failure to record material evidence raises important questions about the rule of law and partiality, complaints about Mr Broughton’s conduct were submitted to the President of Tribunals, Judge Barry Clarke and to the Justice Secretary, Mr Alex Chalk.

A spokesperson for Kostakopoulou informed this media that the strike-out of Kostakopoulou’s claim was not surprising because, in a letter addressed to the Birmingham Employment Tribunal years ago, the point was made that as long as Kostakopoulou’s claim remained at the Tribunal, the facts of her claims would never materialise, which was why more than 30 requests were made to transfer the case to an alternative hearing centre.

In all this, one cannot but wonder about the persistent denial of access to justice and the right to fair hearing in the UK in the third decade of the 21^st century. If such a fundamental right is not observed and employers feel that they can use strike-out applications on the day that the final merit hearing is due to begin in order to deter access to justice and thus to escape scrutiny and accountability, then the fundamentals of liberal democracy are eroded.

Overall, Kostakopoulou’s access to justice and vindication was initially delayed for three years, has been obstructed at every level of the UK justice system and has now been denied.  This media has written on these issues.

https://new-economy.gr/2023/07/05/did-warwick-university-vice-chancellor-pursue-whistle-blower/

https://new-economy.gr/2022/10/23/similarities-kostakopoulou-case-and-johnny-depp/

 https://new-economy.gr/2021/12/12/kostakopoulou-warwick-case/

https://new-economy.gr/2022/05/28/whistle-blower-kostakopoulou/

https://www.dorakostakopoulou.com/

Intro to The Kostakopoulou case

A law professor and whistle-blower Kostakopoulou brings 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. As well as being banned from campus, the library, and all email communication with her colleagues, Kostakopoulou was prohibited from supervising her undergraduate and graduate students who suffered as a consequence of her suspension.

new-economy.gr