Prof. Ardemis Boghossian v IOP Publishing Limited & Anor
Decision date: 17 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] EWHC 3317 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Prof Boghossian sued IOP and Dr Djokic claiming she was a joint author of a 2017 paper and that its publication infringed her copyright. The court found she did not prove joint authorship on the balance of probabilities and dismissed her copyright claim; IOP’s Part 20 claim for indemnity against Dr Djokic was therefore dismissed. The court refused to strike out Dr Djokic’s Part 20 defence, gave his absent evidence limited weight, and held that, alternatively, the EPFL mediation terms would have constituted consent to publication.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The judge treated the core legal test for joint authorship as requiring evidence of authorial contribution to the text itself rather than mere technical, editorial or collaborative input; in scientific papers the scope for creative, authorial contribution may be limited and ordinary structuring, technical suggestions or being named on draft materials will not establish joint authorship without contemporaneous evidence identifying specific textual contributions. The court also applied the principle that courts should be cautious in striking out defences under CPR 39.3(1) where an absent party’s pleadings or witness material may be relied on as hearsay and striking out would unfairly prejudice the relying party.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggested (obiter) that common academic practices—such as listing potential co‑authors on draft papers—do not alone establish joint authorship, and that contemporaneous mediator communications (including informal emails) can be important in construing the terms of an oral mediation agreement about publication rights.