Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Limited

On an application to strike out or obtain summary judgment, the court must decide whether the claim has a realistic prospect of success without conducting a mini-trial. A litigant in person is entitled to reasonable latitude in reading imperfect pleadings, but the court must not invent a claim which the facts and law cannot support.

Claims based on alleged workplace injury require evidence of duty, breach and non-remote damage. Whistleblowing claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 are for the employment tribunal, not the High Court. Serious allegations of conspiracy or forgery require more than bare assertion.

The claimant brought proceedings in the High Court against Amazon UK Services Limited and PM Recruitment, alleging breach of contract, conspiracy, negligence, intentional infliction of distress, personal injury, forgery and whistleblowing. The claims arose from his recruitment for work at Amazon’s Tilbury warehouse, his temporary agency engagement, an alleged workplace accident and subsequent termination.

PM Recruitment’s involvement was resolved by consent. The hearing concerned Amazon’s applications to strike out the claims or obtain summary judgment, together with Amazon’s application to strike out a contempt application alleging that its Defence contained a false statement.

1. Strike out and summary judgment. The court applied the principles summarised in Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch). The question was whether the claims had a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. The court could analyse evidence and documents, but should not conduct a mini-trial. Claims drafted by a litigant in person should be read with reasonable latitude, without requiring the court to fashion an unsustainable claim.
2. Claims against Amazon. The documents showed no contract of employment between Amazon and the claimant. Any temporary contract was with the recruitment company. There was no realistic prospect of proving a binding promise of permanent employment, conspiracy, forgery, intentional infliction of distress or personal injury. The CCTV evidence showed that the claimant was not struck by the ladder, and there was no medical evidence supporting an injury claim.
3. Negligence and whistleblowing. It was arguable that Amazon might owe a duty of care in providing workplace equipment despite not being the claimant’s employer. However, there was no evidence of breach or recoverable injury. Whistleblowing claims under sections 44, 100, 47B and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were statutory employment claims actionable only in the employment tribunal and could not succeed in the High Court.
4. Contempt application. The court accepted that it retained an inherent jurisdiction to strike out a contempt application to prevent abuse of process, following Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch). The alleged inconsistency concerned an email from the recruitment company rather than a dishonest statement by Amazon. The contempt application was dismissed. Permission was also required under CPR Rule 81.3(5)(b), but had not been obtained.
5. Orders. The claims against Amazon were struck out under CPR Rule 3.4 and recorded as totally without merit. No additional order for summary judgment under CPR Rule 24.2 was required. The court was minded to make a civil restraint order and invited written representations. Costs were awarded to Amazon, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

First-instance decision. Proceedings against PM Recruitment were resolved by consent before the hearing. The claims against Amazon were struck out, and the contempt application was dismissed.