Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Limited & Anor

A civil restraint order requires more than repeated procedural mistakes. The conduct must amount to vexatious or abusive litigation, obsessive persistence, or refusal to accept the court’s decision. The court should ask whether prior claims or applications were totally without merit, whether there is an objective risk of further abuse, and what is the least restrictive order necessary to protect the court’s process. An extended order may be appropriate where persistence is established but the conduct remains focused on one subject. A general order requires a wider scattergun approach.

This was an addendum concerning proceedings brought against Amazon UK Services Limited and PMP Recruitment Limited. The claimant’s claims against Amazon had been struck out, and his attempt to set aside a consent order concerning PMP had failed. He nevertheless made further applications to join defendants, pursue contempt proceedings, obtain injunctions and recover substantial sums.

The court considered whether those applications should be dismissed, whether a civil restraint order should be made, its appropriate form and duration, and the appropriate costs orders.

1. The applications dated 16 and 18 June, 1 July and 4 July 2023 were wholly without merit and were dismissed under CPR 3.3(4). The court also considered the requirement under CPR 3.3(7) to consider a civil restraint order where an application made on the court’s own initiative is dismissed as totally without merit.
2. A civil restraint order requires conduct properly characterised as vexatious or abusive, obsessive persistence, or refusal to take no for an answer, rather than merely getting things wrong. Applying Nowak v NMC [2013] EWHC 1932, the court asked whether the litigant had persistently issued claims or applications totally without merit, whether there was an objective risk of further abuse, and what was the least restrictive order necessary and proportionate to protect the court’s process.
3. The first two limbs were satisfied by the claimant’s repeated meritless applications, persistence after adverse decisions and continuing attempts to add defendants and pursue substantial claims.
4. The persistence threshold for an extended civil restraint order was met. A general order was inappropriate because the claimant’s conduct, though obsessive, focused on one subject rather than a scattergun approach across a range of grievances. An extended civil restraint order was therefore made for the maximum period, covering claims or applications in any court which involved, related to, touched upon or led to these proceedings.
5. Amazon was awarded £90,000 on summary assessment. PMP was awarded £14,000 on summary assessment.

This was a first-instance addendum judgment. It corrected and revoked parts of the order dated 15 June 2023 that had mistakenly applied to Amazon or required Amazon to take action.