Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Limited & Anor

A consent order compromising proceedings will be set aside only where a recognised vitiating factor, such as economic duress or misrepresentation, is established on the evidence. Economic duress requires an illegitimate threat, sufficient causation and the absence of a reasonable alternative. Misrepresentation requires a false representation of fact made by, or known to, the other contracting party, together with the relevant causation and, for fraud, the necessary dishonest state of mind.

A company cannot be added merely because it is connected with another company involved in the dispute. Separate corporate personality and a proper legal basis for joinder must be established. Where the underlying claims have already been struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds, the court may refuse to reopen the proceedings to permit claims bound to fail.

The claimant brought claims against Amazon UK Services Limited and PMP Recruitment Limited arising from a temporary placement at Amazon in 2018. The claims against PMP were compromised for £5,000, and a consent order dismissing them was sealed on 24 August 2022.

After the claims against Amazon were struck out under CPR 3.4, the claimant applied to set aside the consent order and reinstate PMP. He alleged misrepresentation, economic duress and confusion about the identity of the relevant company. He also applied to add Challenge-TRG Recruitment Limited and Challenge TRG Recruitment Group Limited as defendants.

The issues were whether the compromise should be set aside and whether the proposed additional parties should be joined.

1. The applications were dismissed. The claimant produced no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, economic duress or other conduct capable of justifying the setting aside or revocation of the consent order. The compromise was therefore binding and the claims against PMP remained dismissed.
2. The court adopted the relevant framework for economic duress. The claimant had to establish an illegitimate threat, sufficient causation between the threat and the agreement, and the absence of any reasonable alternative. The evidence showed only that PMP had informed him of the costs risk of continuing claims said to be against the wrong legal entity. That did not establish an illegitimate threat or the other elements of duress.
3. The court also considered the requirements for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. There was no sufficient evidence of a false representation, inducement, lack of reasonable grounds, or fraudulent state of mind. The frequent changes of company name were difficult to follow but did not establish deception.
4. Challenge was not added as a party. No legal basis for joinder had been advanced, and the companies had distinct legal personalities. The evidence did not show that Challenge had acted on behalf of PMP or had any contractual or other legal relationship with the claimant.
5. Given the earlier judgment striking out the claims against Amazon as disclosing no reasonable grounds, the court was in any event disinclined to allow further costs to be incurred on claims bound to fail. The claimant was ordered to pay Amazon’s costs of the strike-out application. The court gave directions for representations concerning PMP’s costs and any civil restraint order.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The claims against Amazon were struck out under CPR 3.4 by judgment handed down on 25 November 2022. The present judgment dismissed the claimant’s applications concerning the compromise with PMP and the proposed joinder of Challenge.