Law professor with 'profound sense of grievance' banned from courts

A law professor who 'grossly misused the procedures of the courts' in a campaign of meritless claims against the University of Warwick has been hit with an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) by a High Court judge.

Professor Theodora Kostakopoulou was employed by the university as professor of law from 2012. But in 2016, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against her, leading to her receiving a written warning.

In June 2017, she issued a claim in the employment tribunal (ET) against the university and others, alleging detriment because of whistleblowing and other protected acts, race and sex discrimination, breaches of her human rights and EU law, all of which failed.

After being subject to further disciplinary proceedings in December 2019, she issued a second ET claim, alleging the infliction of detriment as a result of protected acts under the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, and later issued a third claim at the ET in August 2020.

Kostakopoulou - who was dismissed by the university on 29 July 2020 - also issued a libel and malicious falsehood claim in the High Court against the university and others, which was struck out by Sir Andrew Nicol in December 2021 with an order for costs.

In a decision today, Mr Justice Bourne struck out an attempt by Kostakopoulou to rescind parts of Sir Andrew Nicol’s order, alleging his decisions were obtained by fraud. 

The defendants applied for an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) to protect them from further meritless claims. The judge said there was ‘absolutely no doubt’ the threshold for an ECRO was met. ‘Looking at her litigious activity in the round, it is characterised by her profound sense of grievance and an apparent inability to accept defeat’, the judge said. 

‘Her repeated contentions that her opponents have committed fraud, or that their lawyers have committed professional misconduct, or that judges have acted with bias and in breach of their judicial oath, are all clear indications of persistent and vexatious litigation.

‘The fact is that, whatever the underlying merits of her long-running disputes with the defendants, the claimant has grossly misused the procedures of the courts and tribunals. She refuses to recognise that fact and seems to assert a right to continue in the same vein. I conclude that there is a serious threat that that conduct will continue.’