Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Limited
[2022] EWHC 3010 (KB)
Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Limited & Anor
15 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1418 (KB)
High Court
The claimant lost his case against a company (Amazon). He tried to get a settlement with another company (PMP) overturned, but failed because he couldn't prove they did anything wrong. He also tried to sue a third company, but wasn't allowed to. The court said his original case was weak, and he has to pay the other companies' legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Godstiime Bassey Idnekpoma (Claimant) sued Amazon UK Services Limited and PMP Recruitment Limited (Defendants) for £10,000,000 and £2,000,000 respectively.
- •Claim against PMP was settled with a £5,000 payment and dismissal of the claim.
- •Claim against Amazon was struck out.
- •Claimant sought to set aside the consent order with PMP and reinstate them in the proceedings.
- •Claimant sought to add Challenge TRG Recruitment Limited as a defendant.
- •PMP's business and assets were transferred to Challenge TRG Recruitment Limited.
- •Numerous company name changes occurred amongst related entities.
Legal Principles
Economic Duress
Times Travel (UK) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines Corpn [2021] 3 WLR 727
Misrepresentation (negligent and fraudulent)
Cassa di Risparmio della Republica di San Marino SpA v. Barclays Bank Ltd [2011] EWHC 484 (Comm), Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 333, London Estates Limited v. Maurice Macneill Iona Ltd [2017] EWHC 998 (Ch)
Outcomes
Claimant's application to set aside the consent order with PMP was dismissed.
No evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or duress by PMP. Claimant's underlying claims lacked merit.
Claimant's application to add Challenge TRG Recruitment Limited as a defendant was dismissed.
No legal basis provided by the Claimant to justify adding Challenge. Distinct legal personalities of involved companies.
Claimant ordered to pay Amazon's costs.
Failure to provide written representations as to why a Civil Restraint Order should not be made and why costs shouldn't be awarded.
Claimant ordered to provide written representations as to why he should not pay PMP's costs.
Claimant's applications to set aside consent order and add Challenge were without merit.