Kostakopolou v University of Warwick & Ors [2021] EWHC 3454 (QB) (21 December 2021)

Kostakopolou v University of Warwick & Ors [2021] EWHC 3454 (QB) (21 December 2021)

The claim is struck out because the defendants have unanswerable defences of leave and licence and qualified privilege, and the claims relating to dismissal or its manner are barred by the Johnson principle as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. The claimant's arguments regarding procedural objections and malice are rejected. The application for default judgment fails as the time for defence had been extended by court order.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3454
Parties
Claimant: Professor Theodora Kostakopolou; 1st Defendant: University of Warwick; 2nd Defendant: Professor Andrew Sanders; 3rd Defendant: Professor Christine Ennew OBE; 4th Defendant: Professor Andy Lavender; 5th Defendant: Ms Diana Opik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division, Media and Communications List) / Hearing of Applications to Strike Out Claim, for Summary Judgment, for Default Judgment, and to Strike Out Witness Statement Passages
Outcome
Claim struck out; claimant's applications refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Qualified Privilege, Leave and Licence, Johnson Exclusion Area, Serious Harm (defamation Act 2013), Malicious Falsehood, Vicarious Liability, Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction, Human Rights Act 1998, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Employment Law Defamation Human Rights Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Qualified Privilege Leave and Licence Johnson Exclusion Area +6 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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Theodora Kostakopolou

Claimant

University of Warwick

1st Defendant

Professor Andrew Sanders

2nd Defendant

Professor Christine Ennew OBE

3rd Defendant

Professor Andy Lavender

4th Defendant

Ms Diana Opik

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division, Media and Communications List) / Hearing of Applications to Strike Out Claim, for Summary Judgment, for Default Judgment, and to Strike Out Witness Statement Passages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to judgment in default of defence
  3. 3 Whether certain passages in the defendants' solicitor's witness statements should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out because the defendants have unanswerable defences of leave and licence and qualified privilege, and the claims relating to dismissal or its manner are barred by the Johnson principle as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. The claimant's arguments regarding procedural objections and malice are rejected. The application for default judgment fails as the time for defence had been extended by court order.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; claimant's applications refused

Orders

  • Claim struck out in its entirety
  • Claimant's application for judgment in default of defence refused