Whistleblower Professor reopens High Court Libel Case
There are new developments in the ‘Kostakopoulou case’, the case of a whistleblower University Professor vs her Manager at Warwick University.
In the London High Court of Justice, on 2 and 3 December 2024, presided by Mr Justice Bourne, Professor Kostakopoulou reopened the 2021 libel, malicious falsehood and breach of human rights and EU law action against the University of Warwick, Professors Christine Ennew, Andrew Sanders, Andy Lavender and Ms Diana Opik.
The reopenning takes place on account of new evidence the University withheld from the court in 2021 which came to light following disclosure requests to Mr David Browne, Partner and representing solicitor of the law firm Shakespeare Martineau, in addition to admissions by the University of Warwick before EJ Broughton in 2023 that there were never any redacted or unredacted student complaints against her and no proof of gross misconduct.
Developments in Artificial Intelligence also indicated that Sir Andrew Nicol had included in his judgement large parts of material contained in Mr Tim Smith, representing solicitor, and Mr Richard Munden, representing Barrister statements while ignoring Prof. Kostakopoulou’s legal submissions and evidence.
The story
In opening submissions on 2 December 2024, Mr Munden, Counsel for the Defendants, told the court that Kostakopoulou’s claims should be struck out or face summary judgment because they were an attempt to relitigate the 2021 claim decided by Sir Nicol. He argued that Prof. Kostakopoulou was seeking to use the Takhar jurisdiction—one that allows judgments to be set aside for fraud—to challenge Sir Nicol’s 2021 order striking out her original claims of libel and human rights violations. (The Takhar jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows for the setting aside of judgments obtained through fraud, and Kostakopoulou is invoking it to challenge the 2021 High Court judgment and order).
At this point, Kostakopoulou stopped Munden and was allowed by Justice Bourne to ask Munden whether there was any evidence of students’ complaints, to which Munden replied, “No.”
Munden argued that Prof. Kostakopoulou had not brought any new evidence not presented to the court in 2021 and that there were no proper particulars of alleged fraud or dishonesty on the part of the Defendants. He posited that the University of Warwick was obliged to investigate complaints from students and that Prof. Kostakopoulou had consented to the disciplinary process when she signed the contract of employment with Warwick University in 2012. Therefore, the Defendants had both the consent and qualified privilege defences.
In concluding the Defendants’ case, Mr Munden told the court that the defendants sought an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) to be imposed on Kostakopoulou to prevent her from bringing claims or making applications since she was a vexatious litigant and would continue to challenge the court’s decision. Munden said 29 of Kostakopoulou’s applications had been certified by courts and tribunals as Totally Without Merit (TWM) in the past three years, demonstrating persistent vexatious litigation requiring court intervention. He added that Kostakopoulou’s applications for default judgment should be rejected because they lacked improper service, while her claims lacked merit.
In response, on the afternoon of the 2nd and morning of the 3rd of December 2024, Prof. Kostakopoulou demonstrated that both Mr Munden and Mr Smith had not told the truth to the High Court in 2021, deliberately making false representations and withholding crucial evidence that came to light in 2022 and 2023 following her repeated disclosure requests. This evidence proved beyond any doubt that the Defendants had framed Kostakopoulou ─ retaliated against her, and had pre-planned her removal from office. The court heard that crucial evidence had emerged from employment tribunal in which the University of Warwick admitted that the claimed student complaints of misconduct—first of many students, then two students, one student, and finally no student complaint—never existed.
Prof. Kostakopoulou noted several incriminating emails between Sanders and other University staff proving her case of malice – one with a raised thumb approving Kostakopoulou’s removal from her post, which had the heading… “Re: The Termination action for Dora Kostakopoulou has been approved” … and included the statement…“Shall we get this framed?”.
Kostakopoulou also referred to other email communications, one regarding workload allocation that did not include her name and another inviting members of the Law School to meet with a prospective Professorial appointment for lunch on the day of her suspension.
Kostakopoulou told the court that emails disclosed in 2023 showed that the allegations against her were planned and fabricated with the help of Ashford, who had written the investigation report with Sanders’s help. The report, which Prof. Lavender had claimed was written by him and he had signed, and the conduct of Ennew, Sanders and Opik were malicious.
The University of Warwick had not disclosed the role of Ms Adele Ashford, HR, who had drafted the investigation report with the help of Sanders. Prof. Lavender signed it, giving the impression that he had undertaken the independent investigation and produced the final report that led to Kostakopoulou’s dismissal.
Kostakopoulou said…”Prof. Sanders wrote the complaint and not Ms Opik…he did not follow the University Student’s complaints procedure to do so”. ….” There are University of Warwick procedures which Ennew and Sanders did not follow to suspend me and remove me from my job”. …”There is no University procedure in the United Kingdom which permits a Head of Department to write an email of complaint on behalf of a student based on uncorroborated hearsay and double hearsay’, ‘this is also a violation of data protection law”…., Warwick
University had used a ‘para-University’ process’ to frame and harm her and she was seeking to overturn Sir Nicol’s decision based on the newly discovered evidence of fraud and deceit.
Kostakopoulou further submitted that Sir Nicol did not address her Human Rights and breaches of EU law complaints and that new evidence arising from Artificial Intelligence, unavailable in 2021, revealed his judgement was based on statements made by the lawyers representing the University (Mr Munden and Mr Smith).
In further submissions, Prof. Kostakopoulou told Mr Justice Bourne that all legal proceedings would have been avoided if a) the Defendants had not refused to abide by CPR pre-action protocols, b) had not refused her 2021 Notices to Admit Facts because of ‘the prejudicial risks of admitting them’ and c) had not refused her Part 18 application for further information and answers to six questions in 2021, would prove her innocence. In 2021, Mr Justice Nicklin had refused her application and had threatened to issue Kostakopoulou with a Civil Restraining Order (CRO) should she repeat applications for disclosure required by the rules and the law, without paying attention to the facts that she had answered 90 questions posed by the Defendants and that the allegations were very vague.
Kostakopoulou argued that the University of Warwick had never any evidence of misconduct against her. Mr Munden and Mr Smith knew this in 2021 but were allowed to continue with the sham. She also told the Court that there had never been any student complaints, either via the informal or formal process of the University of Warwick’s formal student complaints procedure, and that the allegations by Ennew, Sanders, and Opik were designed to frame her and to remove her from her post. Crucially, Kostakopoulou brought to the court’s attention documentary evidence of student meetings being held, which, according to the University of Warwick had not taken place.
The gross misconduct charges were therefore false accusations and a deliberate attempt to destroy her career. They were designed to ensure she would never obtain employment at any UK University, College, or School since no employer would want to employ someone accused of bullying, intimidating, or harassing students.
A key issue in the case was also the discovery of systematic financial fraud in the Defendants’ legal costs submitted to the High Court in 2021. Kostakopoulou told the Court that Mr Smith’s statements of expenses details multiple overcharging instances, including inflated barrister fees, double billing, and fabricated time records. The total overcharging was significant, with some fees over 169% above market rates. Kostakopoulou pointed to the inconsistency between statements made by Munden that the defendants had provided Kostakopoulou with all receipts and bills when in a letter to Kostakopoulou, dated 30 October 2024, seen by this media, from Ms Evie (Elsbury) Stevens of dwf, Prof. Stuart Croft, Vice Chancellor of the University of Warwick representing solicitor, had categorically stated that they would not be providing any receipts or bills.
Prof. Kostakopoulou also told Mr Justice Bourne that the Defendants’ strike-out application was ill-conceived and an abuse of process since they were using tactical delays and procedural manoeuvres to prevent a public hearing on the merits of her claim while driving up costs. Kostakopoulou further noted the instances of individual improprieties by the University of Warwick and a pattern of systematic abuse of the legal process by the University and its legal teams, a tactic she argued it used against its employees.
In final submissions, Prof. Kostakopoulou asked Justice Bourne to rule on the void nature of Justice Spencer’s CRO, which was imposed on her at a crucial time when she requested a default judgment – suggesting that he had acted to aid the Defendants’ case and breaching clear CPR rules and Prof. Kostakopoulou’s rights.
Justice Bourne excused himself from proceeding to consider Kostakopoulou’s request. Within approximately five minutes, he returned and read his decision, saying he could not overturn Spencer’s CRO. Yet this media has seen documents suggesting that Justice Spencer had ignored an order given by Mrs Justice Steyn, which underpinned Prof. Kostakopoulou’s actions, which indicates that Mr Spencer’s CRO was unlawful.
The case was adjourned until 17 January 2025, with Justice Bourne saying he would grant time for Prof. Kostakopoulou to respond to Mr Munden’s ECRO submissions and for Kostakopoulou to complete her examination of multiple lever arch files, which she argued the Defendants had tactically sent to her a few days before the hearing.
On resumption on 17 January 2025, Mr Munden told the court that the ECRO sought was necessary as it would prevent Kostakopoulou from making further claims and applications. This, he argued, had consumed not only the court’s resources but also the University of Warwick’s resources. He cited relevant case law to explain why the ECRO should be granted, especially since Prof. Kostakopoulou was, he argued, a vexatious litigant and would continue to seek to challenge the court’s decision.
Prof. Kostakopoulou rigorously refuted Mr Munden’s submissions arguing that her attempts to clear her name were genuine and not vexatious, as Munden had argued, since she had been clearly wronged as well as denied justice.
Prof. Kostakopoulou told Mr Justice Bourne that it was not vexatious to seek justice to clear her name of the false allegations, which the University of Warwick, Mr Munden and Mr Smith always knew were false and have been sustaining for five years. She argued that… “it was the University of Warwick who was vexatious in its attempt to continuously mislead the court that it had a case when, in fact, it knows that it has no case against her. So, who is being vexatious?”
Kostakopoulou added that Mr Justice Bourne should impose a restraint order on the University of Warwick and its legal team as they were unnecessarily consuming the court’s resources. She then handed to Mr Justice Bourne documentary evidence supporting her submission, including her notebook of student-signed records of attendance meetings she had with them.
Justice Bourne took time to consider its content and noted the evidential record of Mr Sharma and Ms Opik’s own hand-written signatures.
Kostakopoulou asked Justice Bourne to return her notebook as it was her “Bible,” which, she noted…” as long as I have it, the University of Warwick will never be able to make any case of misconduct against me”.
In reply, Munden told the Court that the ECRO should be extended to the employment tribunal litigation and that Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady had also declared Prof. Kostakopoulou’s recent appeals as TWM.
In response, Prof. Kostakopoulou said … ”the CPR framework did not authorise a High Court judge to restrain employment tribunal litigation and that Mr Munden was seeking to mislead the Court by omitting the background and Prof. Kostakopoulou’s actual applications”. Prof. Kostakopoulou offered to submit the omitted material to Mr J. Brourne.
Justice Bourne ordered Prof. Kostakopoulou email the documents (c. 15 pages) to him and to Mr Munden on Monday, 20 January 2025.
Proceedings closed with Justice Bourne saying that he aims to provide his judgement within a few weeks.
Photo by unsplash.com tingeyinjurylawfirm