Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1418 (KB)
Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Limited
25 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 3010 (KB)
High Court
A man sued Amazon, claiming they broke a contract and conspired against him. The judge looked at the evidence and said the man's claims were false and threw the case out. The judge also said the man's attempt to get Amazon in trouble for lying was also unsuccessful.
Key Facts
- •Godstimed Bassey Idenekpoma (Claimant) brought proceedings against Amazon UK Services Limited (Amazon) and PM Recruitment (PMP) for breach of contract, conspiracy, negligence, intentional infliction of distress, depression, forgery, and whistleblowing.
- •Claimant alleged a contract for permanent work with Amazon was violated and documents were forged.
- •Claimant worked at Amazon's Tilbury warehouse through PMP as a temporary agency worker.
- •Claimant made a false claim of injury on December 31, 2018, which was contradicted by CCTV footage.
- •Prior Employment Tribunal claims by the Claimant against PMP were struck out due to non-payment of deposit and failure to comply with orders.
- •Amazon applied to strike out the Claimant's claims or for summary judgment.
Legal Principles
Power to strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.
CPR Rule 3.4
Test for realistic prospect of success in summary judgment applications.
Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Permission required to make an application for contempt relating to a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth.
CPR Part 81.3(5)(b)
Court retains inherent power to strike out an application for contempt.
Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch)
Outcomes
Claimant's claims against Amazon were struck out under CPR Part 3.4.
Claims disclosed no reasonable grounds and were totally without merit; Claimant had no real prospect of success.
Claimant's contempt application against Amazon was dismissed.
No basis to conclude a contempt had been committed; Claimant's allegations were based on PMP's statements, not Amazon's; Amazon's Defence was consistent with its emails; Claimant failed to seek permission for the contempt application.
Court considered making a civil restraint order against the Claimant.
Claimant's claims were struck out as being without merit and he had previously pursued similar unsuccessful claims.