Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Ltd

Hearing dates: 31 October – 1 November 2022

Approved Judgment

Bruce Carr KC:

Introduction:

By a Claim Form dated 6 August 2021, the Claimant brought proceedings against Amazon UK Services Limited (“ Amazon”) and a Second Defendant, PM Recruitment (“ PMP”). The Claim Form described the claims as being “Breach of contract, conspiracy, negligence, intentional infliction of distress, depression (personal injury), forgery, whistleblower” and assessed the value as being “Up to £10,000,000 (million British pounds)” against Amazon and “Up to £2,000,000” against PMP. Both Defendant's resisted the claims brought against them. In its Defence, dated 22 November 2021, Amazon pleaded that:

a. The contract claim was not understood and that there never was a contract entered into between Amazon and the Claimant;

b. The claims based on conspiracy and forgery were also not understood, lacked particularity and were denied in any event;

c. The claims in negligence/for personal injury were again not understood but to the extent that Amazon owed the Claimant a duty of care, that duty had not been breached;

d. There was no jurisdiction in the High Court to hear a whistleblowing claim.

PMP's Defence, dated 20 December 2021, asserted that it was in fact the wrong Defendant as the Claimant's dealings had been with a different corporate entity. All of the Claimant's claims were denied in any event. Whilst there is (or was) clearly a dispute about the correct identity of the Second Defendant, I will refer to “PMP” throughout this judgment and in particular in relation to the recruitment process which is dealt with below, irrespective of whether this is in fact the correct Defendant.

Both Defendants set out reasons as to why the Claimant's claims should be dismissed – Amazon pleaded that the claims “contain insufficient detail, are insufficiently precise and contain no realistic prospect of success and Amazon intends to make an application for summary judgment in respect of them.” PMP pleaded that the claims against it “should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), (b) and/or (c); and/or summary judgment should be entered in [PMP's] favour pursuant to CPR 24.2.”

On 31 January 2022, Amazon issued an application to strike out the Claimant's claims under CPR Part 3.4 or alternatively for summary judgment under CPR Part 24. On 2 February 2022, PMP issued an application in similar terms in respect of the claims against it.

Also on 1 February 2022, the Claimant issued a contempt application against Amazon. The nature of the contempt was described as “false statement in the defense” (sic). The summary of facts alleged to constitute the contempt were described by the Claimant as follows:

“The first defendant have (sic) stated that I never met the conditions for the parmanent (sic) offer but this is clearly a lie, which is proven by the email sent by the second defendant to the first defendant, it states ‘we did advice (sic) him we would still honour his blue badge subject to him satisfying his employment conditions – which he has now done’. Blue badge in this sentence refer (sic) to my parmanent (sic) contract.”

By an order dated 17 May 2022, Mr Justice Soole listed the summary judgment/strike out applications issued by the two Defendants to be heard before a High Court Judge on 7 July 2022. He also ordered that, in the event that Amazon issued and served an application to strike out the Claimant's contempt application by 10 June 2022, that would be heard by the same judge immediately after the summary judgment/strike out applications.

Amazon duly issued its application to have the Claimant's application dismissed or struck out on the final day specified in the order of Mr Justice Soole.

The various applications then came before Mr Dexter Dias QC (as he then was) sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court on the date set by Mr Justice Soole. Mr Dias however recused himself from hearing the applications as a consequence of which they were relisted for a two-day hearing on 31 October and 1 November 2022 before me.

In the event, Proceedings against PMP were however resolved under the terms of a consent order, the details of which were kept between the parties. The hearing before me was therefore confined in terms of strike out and/or summary judgment to the application brought by Amazon. I also had before me, Amazon's application to have the contempt application struck out.

Legal Framework

Although the Claimant appeared in person, I do not think that from the perspective of defining the relevant legal framework, that he has been at any disadvantage. The applicable principles are well-established and in this case did not give rise to the need for any particular legal analysis. They have been helpfully summarised in the Skeleton Argument prepared by Ms Russell on behalf of Amazon.

Dealing first with the strike out application, the starting point is CPR Rule 3.4, the relevant parts of which provide as follows:

“Power to strike out a statement of case

3.4

(1) In this rule and rule 3.5, reference to a statement of case includes reference to part of a statement of case.

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

………

(5) Paragraph (2) does not limit any other power of the court to strike out a statement of case.

(6) If the court strikes out a claimant's statement of case and it considers that the claim is totally without merit –

(a) the court's order must record that fact; and

(b) the court must at the same time consider whether it is appropriate to make a civil restraint order.”

The approach to be taken on such an application has been helpfully set out by Lewison J (as he then was) in Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) at paragraph 15 as follows:

“The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as follows:

i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a “realistic” as opposed to a “fanciful” prospect of success: Swain v Hillman [2001] 2 All ER 91;

ii) A “realistic” claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8]

iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a “mini-trial”: Swain v Hillman

iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel at [10]

v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550;

vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case: Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 63.”

Turning to the provisions of the CPR relevant to the contempt issue, CPR Part 81.3(5)(b) provides that permission to make an application is required:

“ where the application is made in relation to an allegation of knowingly making a false statement in any affidavit, affirmation or other document verified by a statement of truth or in a disclosure statement.”

In the present case, the alleged contempt is to be found in Amazon's Defence filed in these proceedings on 22 November 2021. The Defence contains a Statement of Truth in the usual format and signed by Alex Price, Regional Senior HR Manager on behalf of Amazon.

Whilst the power to strike out an application for contempt was expressly set out in paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction to RSC Ord 52 and has not been expressly included within CPR Part 81, I accept, based on what was said by Judge Eyre QC in Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch) that the Court retains the power to do so as part of its inherent jurisdiction pursuant to which it has the power “to control its own proceedings so as to prevent abuse of its process” (per Judge Eyre QC at paragraph 43).

Relevant factual background

Although there are some factual disputes between the Claimant and Amazon, there are some matters that are uncontentious as follows:

(1) In the late summer/early autumn of 2018, Amazon was looking to recruit employees to work at its Tilbury warehouse premises (“ Tilbury”). PMP was engaged to find the necessary staff who were to be recruited on permanent Amazon contracts;

(2) The Claimant applied through PMP for such a role and was made an offer on 21 September 2021 which was said to be:

“…conditional on and subject to Amazon receiving…..(ii) confirmation (prior to...