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 for all publications made in the course of disciplinary proceedings, the claims are barred by the Johnson v Unisys principle as they relate to dismissal and its manner, and the High Court is not the proper forum for these employment-related grievances. The claimant's pleadings of malice are inadequate, and her procedural objections do not preclude strike out.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3454 (QB)
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) / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment; Applications 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, Malicious Falsehood, Libel, Slander, Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction, Johnson Exclusion Area, Serious Harm (defamation Act 2013)
Employment Law Defamation Human Rights Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Qualified Privilege Leave and Licence Malicious Falsehood +5 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) / Application to Strike Out Claim or for Summary Judgment; Applications 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 publications complained of were protected by leave and licence or qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the claim is barred by the Johnson v Unisys principle

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out because the defendants have unanswerable defences of leave and licence and qualified privilege for all publications made in the course of disciplinary proceedings, the claims are barred by the Johnson v Unisys principle as they relate to dismissal and its manner, and the High Court is not the proper forum for these employment-related grievances. The claimant's pleadings of malice are inadequate, and her procedural objections do not preclude strike out.

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