A University vice-chancellor, the whistleblower, some fraudulent claims and possible Justice attempts to cover up
Should judicial independence be a cloak for tolerating breaches of the rules of law, impartiality and honesty, equality before the law, and human rights? Is this the role of justice?
Despite the lack of a final statute bill, invoices, or receipts, A Professor who had been the vice-chancellor of the University of Warwick, and his senior legal advisor, have been pursuing the whistleblower Professor Kostakopoulou for £75,000 since 2023.
They claim this amount is owed to them due to the “unlawful order of Sir Andrew Nicol on account of a statement of BLM law’s” (now Clyde and Co) “costs incurred in their preparation for the strikeout application in the London High Court of Justice”. The absence of evidence for this fraudulent claim is a cause for concern, as it could set a dangerous precedent for legal ethics. A detailed forensic examination revealed significant irregularities, overcharging, double counting, and misrepresentations, which Prof. Croft and Mr Wright must have been aware of, in the same way that they were aware of Professor Kostakopoulou’s innocence.
Refusing to produce bills and receipts – documents crucial in verifying there is a recoverable debt and, at the same time, failing to submit any defence to Professor Kostakopoulou’s claim of deception and fraud in their submission of costs to the High Court in 2021, Professor Croft, through Mr Nick Wright sought a final charging order on her property. This would enable the University of Warwick to procure an order of sale of her property thereby making her homeless. This is the final act of acute victimisation of an innocent person who stood up for her rights and a tool to force her to abandon all her legal claims against the University of Warwick’s executive and management, which UK Courts and Tribunals have, sought to cover up by depriving her of substantive hearings of her claims despite the monumental evidence they have seen attesting her innocence (see link at end of this article).
This media has also seen documents that make it abundantly clear that any future requests for disclosure would result in no documents being provided that would provide proof of a recoverable debt. Master John Marshall Dagnall refused to order the University of Warwick to make such disclosure when prompted by Prof. Kostakopoulou. Nonetheless, and more damagingly for Prof. Stuart Croft, documents released by Ms Evie Elsbury of DWF LLP acting on behalf of Prof. Stuart Croft leave the University of Warwick drowning in a cesspit of fraudulent costs, which the joint heads of the Media List of the Kings Bench Division of the London High Court of Justice, Mrs Justice Collins Rice and Mrs Justice Steyn have further sought to cover up by not engaging with any of the grounds of Prof. Kostakopoulou’s appeals and applications.
Just as in the well-publicised Sub-Post Masters Horizon Scandal (and the case of Bates v Post Office Ltd [2019]), Prof. Stuart Croft, like Paula Vennells (the former Post Office CEO), is well aware of Prof. Kostakopoulou’s innocence, but he does not cease her victimisation in the knowledge that there are judges in the UK justice system who are willing to cover up executive and management’s wrongdoing and deny her justice, all at the expense of UK taxpayers.
The documents also reveal that Mr Nick Wright served an interim charging order on May 9, 2023. This culminated in a Court Officer (an administrator and not a Judge) accepting the interim charging order on May 12, 2023, in the County Court of Stoke-on-Trent, which questions the legitimacy of the application itself. However, on objection, the application was discharged by District Judge Downey because Mr Nick Wright did not apply to the London High Court of Justice, as the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) require, for an order transferring the proceedings to the County Court with the application for a charging order. So District Judge Downey ordered that the charging order dated 12th of April 2023 be discharged and that the University of Warwick (the judgment creditor) should vacate any Land Registry entries relating to granting the charging order.
Mr Nick Wright then sought to repeat the pursuit of a charging order in the High Court since Masters would be keen on implementing his plans. Master Dagnall issued an interim charging order for a judgment debt plus interest despite having witnessed apparent fraud in the statements of costs. Master John Dagnall (who, as a salaried master, earns a six-figure salary) issued an interim charging order on a no-questions-ask basis, and ordered interest (8%) to be paid knowing that the defendants (the University of Warwick and its executive and management) had been a defaulting party for failing to commence a detailed assessment within three months (by March 2022), and without any consideration or assessment of BLM Law statement of costs for £75,000.
This media understands that Master Dagnall had been assigned the management of Professor Kostakopoulou’s 2021 libel, malicious falsehood and breach of human rights claim, but he did not disclose it. During those proceedings, Mr Justice Nicklin (Head of the Media List) had threatened to issue Prof. Kostakopoulou with a civil restraining order should she repeat her legitimate application for the disclosure of information and documents about the fabricated allegations – an action that is not consonant with the statements he made in his 2024 Annual Lecture on Transparency & Open Justice: Opportunities and Challenges on 9 May 2024, to Newcastle Law School in his capacity as Chair of the Judiciary’s Transparency & Open Justice Board; see https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-mr-justice-nicklin-transparency-open-justice-opportunities-and-challenges/.
Master John Dagnall paved the way for Master Richard Armstrong (who also earns a six-figure salary) to move swiftly to turn the interim charging order into a final charging order at a hurriedly arranged hearing of 30 minutes only via Microsoft Teams on June 7th 2024, despite Prof. Kostakopoulou’s protest, legal objections and evidence of her filed claim for the rescission of the 2021 High Court judgement of Sir Nicol on the grounds of fraud and deception through non-material disclosure. Master Armstrong displayed a wilful blindness to prima facie evidence of fraud and the need for an investigation. This behaviour is particularly problematic since it comes from the High Court, which should be setting standards for judicial conduct rather than undermining them.
Yet, ‘fraud unravels all’, and courts cannot be transformed into instruments of injustice and oppression. The law and the case must be applied without exceptions and the University of Warwick cannot be deemed to have license to violate the law and human rights. Nor can a court be complicit in fraud and breaches of human rights. Deliberate dishonesty in litigation is an abuse of the court’s process, and tolerating the withholding of the requisite documentation to prove claimed costs, particularly when there is evidence of unjustified overcharging, is unacceptable.
How could one justify the application of the same hourly rate of £170 for all fee earners, regardless of their level of experience or seniority, double counting of work and hours by the same solicitor under different grades, the omission of dates and details for work done, excessive charges for simple tasks, such as reviewing short documents or preparing cost statements and duplicative work? How could Mr Richard Munden (representing barrister) justify a fee of £16,500 for a hearing of eight hours? Is it acceptable for a solicitor to charge for looking at his diary for available dates for a hearing and then charge again for looking at his diary for dates to avoid in the listing of the same hearing?
It is alarming that judges at the Kings Bench Division of the London High Court of Justice (one of the UK’s highest courts), which is entrusted with upholding the rule of law, have such documentary evidence in their possession. Instead of using the might of the law to penalise the lawbreakers, they seem to devote their resources to intimidating, exhausting, and punishing the innocent claimant and whistleblower. This is also a reminder that lessons have not been learned from the gross miscarriage of justice experienced by hundreds of sub-post managers over a protracted period.
Conclusion
Prof. Kostakopoulou continues to be treated unfairly and unjustly at the hands of Judges in UK Courts and Tribunals who are keen to protect powerful institutional interests and even to erase the fact of the University of Warwick’s wrongdoing from judgments and court documents. The omission of her human rights violation complaints is a notable example. There are also judgments that bear no factual accuracy of what unfolded and transpired at the hearings – evidence that Prof. Kostakopoulou has submitted to Sir Keir Starmer’s Government, the President of Employment Tribunals and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman.
This media has seen evidence indicating that EJ Broughton had concealed evidence attesting Prof. Kostakopoulou’s innocence, EJ Perry proceeded to strike out Prof. Kostakopoulou’s merits hearing on the pretext of a fictitious strikeout bundle, EJ Camp had written falsehoods in his three separate judgements thereby obstructing justice. This evidence also seem to revealed that EJ Findlay, Regional Employment Judge, had persistently obstructed Prof. Kostakopoulou’s claim, acting in concert with Mr David Browne, Partner of the Solicitor firm Shakespear Martineau, EJ Camp, and Ms Akua Reindorf, representing barrister and part-time judge.
Judgments are expected to represent proceedings and judicial findings accurately. When they do not, the integrity of the process is brought into question, and this underscores, moreover, the lack of transparency and accountability of UK Courts and Tribunal Judges.
This is because, unlike in the legal system of the USA and in many EU legal systems where clerks are present in hearings and provide a record of the proceedings, in the United Kingdom, employment tribunals operate without official minutes taken by clerks. Instead, judges take notes as the hearing proceeds, which cannot be disclosed to a party. If there is an audio recording of the hearing, parties have to pay one of the very few transcribing firms to produce a transcript which is often inaccurate and full of apparently ‘inaudible’ sentences at crucial parts of the proceedings.
This means that claimants would find it, at best, quite challenging to challenge the accuracy of a judge’s written decision and the evidence presented during the hearing if such evidence is suppressed in his written judgment while also being refused personal access to the audio recording. Such a lack of transparency and accountability means that judges can violate claimants’ rights to a fair hearing and misrepresent the truth without being perceived and held accountable. When complaints are lodged to authorities and the government, they are invariably rejected on the grounds of judicial independence.
However, judicial independence should never be a cloak for tolerating breaches of the rules of law, impartiality and honesty, equality before the law, and human rights. Nor can should be used to justify refusals to confront and eradicate judicial corruption. Otherwise, public trust in the fair administration of justice diminishes, and multiple crises ensue.
https://new-economy.gr/2023/07/05/did-warwick-university-vice-chancellor-pursue-whistle-blower/
https://new-economy.gr/2023/08/07/was-whistleblowers-earing-hijacked-the-kostakopoulou-
reloaded-p1/
https://new-economy.gr/2023/08/10/whistleblowers-hearing-hijacked-part-2/
https://new-economy.gr/2022/05/28/whistle-blower-kostakopoulou/
https://new-economy.gr/2022/10/23/similarities-kostakopoulou-case-and-johnny-depp/
https://new-economy.gr/2020/06/27/racism-warwick/