Kostakopoulou v University of Warwick & Ors [2025] EWHC 342 (KB) (18 February 2025)

Kostakopoulou v University of Warwick & Ors [2025] EWHC 342 (KB) (18 February 2025)

Neither claim advanced by the claimant identified any fresh, material evidence of fraud that could satisfy the requirements in Takhar for rescinding a civil judgment. The claims were attempts to relitigate matters already determined, disclosed no reasonable grounds, and constituted an abuse of process. The claimant's applications for default judgment and to set aside acknowledgments of service failed because service by email was not validly effected under the CPR and Practice Direction 6A. The applications for disclosure and to set aside the Limited Civil Restraint Order were also without merit.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 342 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Professor Theodora Kostakopoulou; First Defendant: University of Warwick; Second Defendant: Professor Andrew Sanders; Third Defendant: Professor Christine Ennew OBE; Fourth Defendant: Professor Andy Lavender; Fifth Defendant: Ms Diana Öpik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Judgment on Applications to Strike Out, for Summary Judgment, Ecro, Default Judgment, and Related Reliefs
Outcome
Claims struck out and/or summary judgment granted for the defendants. All applications by the claimant dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Fraud on the Court, Rescission of Judgment, Civil Restraint Orders, Service of Process, Default Judgment, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Employment Law Defamation Costs Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Fraud on the Court Rescission of Judgment +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Theodora Kostakopoulou

Claimant

University of Warwick

First Defendant

Professor Andrew Sanders

Second Defendant

Professor Christine Ennew OBE

Third Defendant

Professor Andy Lavender

Fourth Defendant

Ms Diana Öpik

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Judgment on Applications to Strike Out, for Summary Judgment, Ecro, Default Judgment, and Related Reliefs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claims to set aside previous High Court orders for fraud satisfy the requirements in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd
  2. 2 Whether the claims disclose any reasonable grounds or are an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether there is any fresh evidence of material fraud justifying rescission of the 2021 orders

Ratio Decidendi

Neither claim advanced by the claimant identified any fresh, material evidence of fraud that could satisfy the requirements in Takhar for rescinding a civil judgment. The claims were attempts to relitigate matters already determined, disclosed no reasonable grounds, and constituted an abuse of process. The claimant's applications for default judgment and to set aside acknowledgments of service failed because service by email was not validly effected under the CPR and Practice Direction 6A. The applications for disclosure and to set aside the Limited Civil Restraint Order were also without merit.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out and/or summary judgment granted for the defendants. All applications by the claimant dismissed as totally without merit.

Orders

  • Claims KB-2024-001518 and KB-2024-001772 struck out and/or dismissed by summary judgment.
  • Claimant's cross-applications and applications for default judgment, to set aside acknowledgments of service, for disclosure, and to set aside the LCRO all dismissed and certified totally without merit.