Professor Theodora Kostakopolou v University of Warwick (corporate body incorporated by Royal Charter No RC0006678)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Andrew Nicol |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3454 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB 2021 000171 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 3454 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Sir Andrew Nicol
Case No: QB 2021 000171
Richard Munden (instructed by BLM) for the Defendants
The Claimant in person
Hearing dates: 18 th and 19 th October 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This is the hearing of applications:
i) By the Defendants to strike out the claim or for summary judgment in their favour.
ii) By the Claimant for judgment in default of a defence.
iii) By the Claimant to strike out certain passages in the witness statements of Timothy Smith, a solicitor for the Defendants.
The Claimant was employed by the 1 st Defendant as Professor of Law. She was Professor of European Law, European Integration and Public Policy.
The 1st Defendant is the University.
The 2 nd Defendant was head of Warwick Law School and the Claimant's line manager.
The 3 rd Defendant was the Provost of the University of Warwick.
The 4 th Defendant was an investigator appointed by the 3 rd Defendant.
The 5 th Defendant was a law student at the University of Warwick.
As against the 1 st Defendant the Claimant seeks damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breaches of her rights under ECHR Articles 8 and 14 taken with breaches of Articles 1, 7 and 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘EUCFR’). The Claimant also says that the 1 st Defendant is vicariously liable for the torts of the 2 nd – 4 th Defendants.
The claim against the 2 nd Defendant is for libel or malicious falsehood in respect of words published or caused to be published in January 2020 and March-June 2020.
The claim against the 3 rd Defendant is for libel and/or malicious falsehood for words published on 16 th January 2020, 20 th January 2020 and 1 st June 2020.
The claim against the 4 th Defendant is for libel or malicious falsehood for words published in a letter of 23 rd January 2020 and a confidential investigation report dated 13 th May 2020. The Claimant also alleges that she was slandered by the 4 th Defendant in statements at a disciplinary hearing on 20 th July 2020.
The claim against the 5 th Defendant is for libel or malicious falsehood in a publication by the 5 th Defendant in March or April 2020.
Factual Background
The Claimant was appointed to a chair in the University in 2012.
In 2016 disciplinary proceedings were commenced against the Claimant, accusing her of disruptive and inappropriate behaviour at a staff meeting on 15 th June 2016.
On 2 nd August 2016 the Claimant was suspended by Professor Croft, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Warwick.
A disciplinary hearing took place on 29 th November 2016. Thereafter Professor Simon Gilson (Chair of the Arts Faculty of Warwick University) notified the Claimant on 9 th December 2016 that he upheld all of the complaints against the Claimant. He issued a written warning that would remain on the Claimant's file for 2 years. He also notified the Claimant that her suspension had been lifted with immediate effect. The Claimant appealed against Professor Gilson's sanction, but her appeal was unsuccessful, as she Claimant was told on 23 rd February 2017.
On 27 th June 2017 the Claimant issued a claim in the Employment Tribunal (‘the 2017 ET claim’) The Respondents were the University, and others. She alleged that she was being subjected to detriment because of her whistleblowing and other protected acts. She also alleged race and sex discrimination, breaches of her human rights and EU law.
On 13 th November 2018 Employment Judge Camp struck out much of the 2017 ET claim. The Claimant appealed against his decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which ordered a preliminary hearing of whether Judge Camp was correct to strike out the whistleblowing claim and to remove the individual respondents from the claim.
The remainder of the 2017 ET claim was dismissed in April 2019 by Employment Judge Monk because of the Claimant's failure to comply with an Unless order regarding disclosure. The Claimant appealed that decision to the EAT.
The Claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, but on 18 th May 2020 she was refused permission to appeal by Lewison LJ.
On 4 th December 2019 disciplinary proceedings were started against the Claimant. The allegations were that she had failed to comply with reasonable management requests, had failed to attend various meetings and not fulfilled her responsibilities in good faith. The disciplinary proceedings were started by the 3 rd Defendant who appointed the 4 th Defendant as the Investigating Officer.
On 6 th January 2020 the Claimant submitted a formal grievance to Sir David Normington, the Chair of the Council of University and Ms Cooke, the Deputy Chair.
The allegations against the Claimant were expanded on 16 th January 2020 by the 3 rd Defendant, so as to include allegations that the Claimant had attempted to influence potential witnesses and had harassed students in relation to complaints that they had made.
On 16 th January 2020 the 3 rd Defendant suspended the Claimant, alleging that the Claimant had sought to harass potential witnesses against her.
On 29 th January 2020 the investigation into the disciplinary matter was suspended because of a grievance which the Claimant had made against the 3 rd Defendant. That suspension continued until 29 th July 2020 when the Claimant was dismissed by the University.
On 25 th February 2020 the Claimant issued a second set of proceedings in the Employment Tribunal (‘the February 2020 ET claim’). The February 2020 ET claim was brought against the 1 st – 3 rd Defendants in the present proceedings. She claimed that she had been subjected to a detriment as a result of protected acts under the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 because of the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against her. The Defendants submit that there is considerable overlap between allegations in the February 2020 ET claim and the Particulars of Claim in the present proceedings.
On 1 st April 2020 the disciplinary investigation resumed.
On 21 st April 2020 a statement was provided by Student X on condition of anonymity.
The disciplinary investigation report was completed on 20 th May 2020 and is dated 13 th May 2020.
On 1 st June 2020 the 3 rd Defendant informed the Claimant that a disciplinary hearing would take place on 29 th June 2020.
The Claimant was dismissed by the 1 st Defendant on 29 th July 2020. This was the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing chaired by Professor Ennew's Deputy, Professor Caroline Meyer.
In August 2020 the Claimant issued a third Employment Tribunal claim (‘the August 2020 ET claim’). The August 2020 ET claim was against the 1 st and 3 rd Defendants. The claims included wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, interference with the Claimant's Article 8 ECHR rights and for breaches of her rights under Articles 1 and 7 of the EUCFR. The Defendants submit that there is substantial overlap between the August 2020 ET claim and the present proceedings.
As part of the August 2020 ET claim, the Claimant sought interim relief under the Employment Rights 1996 s.128. The application was refused by Employment Judge Dean on 3 rd November 2020. The Claimant says that she appealed his refusal to the EAT.
The February 2020 ET claim and the August 2020 ET claim have now been conjoined.
The Claimant appealed her dismissal to a panel which comprised Professor Sparrow, Professor Roberts and Ms Stuart. The appeal was dismissed on, I believe, 27 th August 2020.
The Claimant has asked the Employment Tribunal to stay the ET proceedings while this High Court claim is litigated (see further below).
Procedural history
The Claim Form was issued on 15 th January 2021. It said that it was in respect of:
i) Libel and malicious falsehood regarding statements published by the 1 st Defendant between January and 17 th September 2020.
ii) Libel and malicious falsehood in publications by the 2 nd Defendant in January – June 2020.
iii) Libel and malicious falsehood in publications by the 3 rd Defendant between January and June 2020.
iv) Libel and malicious falsehood by the 4 th Defendant in respect of publication of a letter of 23 rd January 2020, a confidential investigation report of 13 th May 2020 and slander regarding statements spoken at a hearing on 20 th July 2020.
v) Libel and malicious falsehood by the 5 th Defendant in a statement in March or April 2020.
vi) Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, Articles and 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and for breaches of Articles 1, 7 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘EUCFR’) and breaches of the General Principles of EU law, including the right to be heard and proportionality and other primary EU law.
The Claimant served her Particulars of Claim on 5 th May 2021.
The Defendants acknowledged service of the claim form on 20 th May 2021.
The Defendants served a request for Further Information of the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant served her response on 25 th June 2021.
The Claimant responded to a second request for Further Information on 5 th September 2021.
On 7 th June 2021 the Defendants applied for an extension of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mrs Kostakopoulou v University of Warwick and Others
...the 2017 ET Claim. The High Court proceedings were struck out on 21 December 2021 in a judgment and by order of Sir Andrew Nicholl ([2021] EWHC 3454 QB). 8. Meanwhile, in December 2019, disciplinary proceedings were started again against the claimant and she was then suspended from 16 Janua......