Is High Court Judge Judgment Cover Up of University Abuses in Whistleblower Professor’s Case?

On 18 February 2025, Mr Justice Charles Bourne released his judgment on the reopened
2021 libel, malicious falsehood, and breach of human rights and EU law action brought by
Professor Kostakopoulou against the University of Warwick, Professors Christine Ennew,
Andrew Sanders, Andy Lavender, and Ms Diana Opik.
In his judgment, Mr Bourne failed to state that Prof. Kostakopoulou had reopened the case
based on AI analysis and other new evidence made available by Mr David Browne, partner
and representing solicitor of Shakespeare Martineau in 2023. The ai analysis revealed that Sir
Andrew Nicol’s 2021 judgment was primarily based on material taken from the statements of
Mr Richard Munden, Counsel for the University of Warwick and Mr Tim Smith of BLM,
now at dwf, while ignoring Prof. Kostakopoulou’s legal submissions, substantial and weighty
evidence.
The facts and evidence presented, and which Mr J. Bourne suppressed in the judgment, centre
on events from 2019-2020, when Kostakopoulou was suspended and ultimately dismissed
following Professor Ennew’s allegations of harassing, threatening, and intimidating students.
However, documents that emerged after the original 2021 ruling paint a starkly different
picture of coordinated targeting of Prof. Kostakopoulou, who had previously raised concerns
about data protection issues and was an equality and human rights defender.
Key new evidence seem to be omitted from Mr J. Bourne’s judgment includes admissions by the
University of Warwick in February 2023 that there were never any formal student complaints
against Prof. Kostakopoulou, despite this being the basis for her suspension and dismissal. Mr
Munden repeated those admissions in the HC hearing in December 2024, stating in open
court that “There were no formal or informal student complaints” and that there are no such
documents.
Yet, notwithstanding the evidence and the admissions, Mr J. Bourne wrote in his judgment
that there were student allegations—a factually incorrect statement. This media understands
that members of the public have come forward and have stated their willingness to sign
affidavits confirming Mr Munden’s admission.
The indelible evidence in the possession of this media proves that Mr J. Bourne's judgment is
not an accurate account of what was argued before him on December 2nd and 3rd, 2024, and
January 17, 2025. This is because Mr J. Bourne purposely suppressed evidence,
mischaracterised facts, and misapplied the law.
Did Mr Bourne did so because he wanted to cover up the reprehensible employment and human
rights abuse Prof. Kostakopoulou endured at the University of Warwick for several years
with the knowledge of Prof. Croft, Vice Chancellor and Sir David Normington, Chair of the
Council and Pro Chancellor, who knew that she was innocent from the outset ‒ evidenced by
Professor Kostakopoulou’s communication dated 31 January 2020 to Sir Normington read
out in court? Yet, there was no reference to it in Mr J. Bourne’s judgment.
Mr. J. Bourne further suppressed that the Defendants in 2021 had concealed from the High
Court crucial information, had not abided by the pre-action protocol and had denied to

respond to Prof. Kostakopoulou’s Notices To Admit Facts. They had written that the latter
created ‘a prejudicial risk to the defendants’.
Mr. J. Bourne did not reveal that Prof. Kostakopoulou had asked Mr Justice Nicklin to direct
Mr Smith to disclose the information (to answer six questions) in her disclosure application,
which the rules and the law required. But Mr J Nicklin denied Prof. Kostakopoulou’s
application and threatened to impose a civil restraining order on her. Here lies the problem:
Justice Nicklin perverted the course of justice because he knew the University of Warwick
could not prove their allegations.
Mr J. Bourne also seemed suppressing the new documentary evidence in his judgment that showed
Mrs Adele Ashford, HR staff (now at the University of Birmingham), was the drafter of the
supposedly independent report with the input of Prof. Andrew Sanders, and not Prof. Andy
Lavender (now Pro-vice chancellor London Guild Hall of Drama and Music), who, before the
new evidence came to light in 2023, was assumed to have undertaken the independent
investigation and had signed it off as if he was the author of it.
Did Mr J. Bourne knowingly suppressed Prof Kostakopoulou’s evidence, which showed that Prof.
Ennew and Sanders fabricated the original allegations and that Prof. Mark Steel and Caroline
Meyer (Ennew’s deputy, now pro-vice-chancellor) rubber-stamped her removal from her
post?
Email chains showing senior University of Warwick officials, including Prof. Sanders and
HR staff, notably Mrs Ashford, coordinating actions against Prof. Kostakopoulou before any
investigation occurred.
Mr Bourne seemed suppressing evidence confirming Prof. Kostakopoulou’s dismissal by University
of Warwick officials celebrating Prof. Kostakopoulou’s removal, including one with the
subject line  Re: The Termination action for Dora Kostakopoulou has been approved and
the comment  Shall we get this framed?  with a thumbs-up.

Mr J. Bourne failed to record evidence in his judgment that Prof. Sanders had instructed staff
not to include Prof. Kostakopoulou in the 2020-2021 teaching allocations, which showed
Sanders’ malicious intent.
Mr J. Bourne did divulge that he saw documentary evidence that revealed succession plans in
the law school for Prof. Kostakopoulou’s replacement before her suspension and removal
from post.
Neither did Mr J. Bourne acknowledge in his judgment that Prof. Kostakopoulou’s
replacement was being arranged and that on the day of her suspension, Prof. Sanders invited
staff members to meet with her prospective replacement over lunch.
The evidence presented before Mr J. Bourne seem to prove that the University of Warwick’s
procedures were bypassed to facilitate the framing of the innocent professor by Prof.
Christine Ennew and Andrew Sanders. Mr J. Bourne covered up the evidence that the
University’ precures were not followed. Prof. Kostakopoulou made detailed submissions
about non-compliance with the student complaints procedure, the Dignity at Warwick policy
and procedure, the Disciplinary procedure and Data Protection Law. She had described the
operation of what she termed a “para-University process”.
In addition, Mr J. Bourne suppressed the fact that he saw Prof. Kostakopoulous evidence of a
notebook with student-signed records of attendance meetings, which he carefully scrutinised
in court in front of the watching public. He noted signatures from key individuals, including
Mr. Animan Sharma and Ms. Diana Opik, which proved that Prof. Sanders and/or Ms Opik
had lied to harm Prof. Kostakopoulou.
Mr J. Bourne surprisingly, failed to reference

1. the crucial evidence that the University of Warwick had removed all traces from its Tabular System of students;

2.records of meetings they had with Prof. Kostakopoulou, which is mandatory, and

3. that the university was caught out lying when she produced her notebook of students’ signatures of meetings.
Mr J. Bourne also suppressed Ennew and Sanders narrative of students  complaints in
January 2020, which eventually came down to two students, then one student, and finally no
student.

Yet, despite this hard evidence, he purposely writes there were students allegations—an allegation that is not in line with evidence- and not the University of Warwick, wished to sustain.
Mr J. Bourne suppressed in his judgement that Kostakopoulou asked him to return her
notebook with student-signed records of attendance meetings 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”.
Another severe suppression concerned the discovery of what Professor Kostakopoulou called
“systematic financial fraud” in the legal costs submitted to the High Court in 2021. This
included inflated barrister fees, double billing, fabricated time records, and fees charged at up
to 169% above market rate.
On this issue, Mr J. Bourne wrongly categorised systematic double-billing and false cost
statements as assessment issues rather than examining evidence of deliberate deception
proving irrefutable fraudulent cost items.’ Mr J. Bourne did so as it was convenient for him to
accept the unproven claims of £75,000 legal costs without evidential proof of receipt and bills to document proof of a recoverable debt as required by the law of evidence, despite the contradictory statements of Mr Munden on page 28 of his skeleton argument that…“the
Defendants deny that the Claimant is entitled to any of the information requested, but have
provided her with the final statute bill and receipts from the 2021 claim.” Ms. Evie Elsbury of
DWF declared in her October 14, 2024, letter to Prof. Kostakopoulou that … “In your email
dated 3 October requesting receipts issued by BLM, our understanding is that there are no
receipts as there is no requirement to provide a receipt.
Mr J. Bourne was also disingenuous in justifying Munden’s request for the Extended Civil
Restraint Order (ECRO), which he issued Professor Kostakopoulou. In effect, he was doing
what Mr Munden required on false pretences, effectively preventing Prof. Kostakopoulou
from pursuing further legal action. In doing so, Mr J. Bourne suppressed that Justice Spencer
imposed a Civil Restraining Order (CRO) at a crucial moment when Professor
Kostakopoulou requested a default judgment (which by the CPR and the law, she was
entitled), she argued breached CPR and her rights, and asked that he review Mr Spencer’s
orders.
In dismissing Prof. Kostakopoulou’s request, Mr J. Bourne declined to review the validity of
Justice Spencer’s CRO despite documentation proving that Mr Spencer had disregarded an
order by Mrs. Justice Steyn to Prof. Kostakopoulou to submit within seven days an
application for the parties to vary or set aside her order because it was done on paper.
He also ignored the evidence in his judgment that he asked Professor Kostkopoulou to
provide proof of Mr Jennifer Eady raising appeals on Prof. Kostakopoulou’s behalf, which is
unlawful since no judge is allowed under CPR to do so and then to certify her appeal as
Totally Without Merit (TWM).
This media understands that Justice Eady did so to enable Mr Munden’s ECRO application.
When key evidence is suppressed or ignored to benefit the University of Warwick, which
disregarded its own procedures and violated employment and human rights, as Mr J. Bourne
has done, public confidence in the administration of justice suffers. Judicial impartiality,
honesty, and integrity lie at the heart of fair adjudication and are mandatory under the judicial
oath.
This case reminds us of the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings, particularly in
cases involving whistleblowers who challenge institutional power. The public interest is
served not by silencing persistent claims but by ensuring they receive thorough and impartial
examination. Mr J. Bourne’s judgment is unsafe, for Prof. Kostakopoulou did not receive a
fair hearing, and a new hearing is required to be heard by an impartial judge who respects his
judicial oath—one who does not give the impression to represent the interests of the
University of Warwick, Mr Munden, and DWF LLP.