Man who claimed he was falsely induced into working for Amazon fails to resurrect civil claim against unrelated recruitment agency

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] EWHC 1418 (KB)
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  England and Wales High Court
• Judge:
  Bruce Carr KC

Godstime Idnekpoma, who was also ordered to provide reasons why a civil restraint order should not be made against him, argued that he had acted under duress when he signed the agreement with second defendant PMP Recruitment Ltd. The basis of his original claim was an assertion that he had been deceived into working in an Amazon warehouse with the promise of a permanent job.

The case was heard in the High Court of England and Wales by Deputy Judge Bruce Carr KC. The claimant appeared in person while the second defendant was represented by Alexander Robson. No representations were made by the first defendant.

Wrong legal entity

From October to December 2018, the claimant began a temporary work placement in an Amazon warehouse facilitated by a company which at the time was named PMP Recruitment Ltd. That company later changed its name to PRL Realisations Ltd in April 2020, while the second defendant, formerly known as Cordant Recruitment Ltd, changed its name to PMP Recruitment Ltd from 30 July 2021. As part of its defence, PMP asserted it had never dealt with the claimant and he had, in effect, sued the wrong legal entity.

On 19 August 2022, the claimant and PMP entered into a compromise agreement under which PMP would pay the claimant £5,000 in consideration of him signing a consent order. The claimant signed the order and as a result his claim against PMP was dismissed with no order as to costs. Deputy Judge Carr ordered the claim against Amazon be struck out on 25 November 2022 and ordered the claimant to provide written submissions on the issues of costs and a potential civil restraint order.

Following the dismissal of the Amazon claim, the claimant sought to have the consent order made in relation to PMP set aside, asserting that he was acting under duress due to being scared he would have to pay costs and that PMP was in fact not the wrong defendant. A solicitor for PMP filed a statement in response identifying that the entity formerly known as PMP and the second defendant had separate company numbers and had never been related in any way.

It was submitted for the second defendant that the claim against it had been compromised with no fraud or economic duress. PMP had simply informed the claimant that he was at risk to costs if he continued with proceedings that were bound to fail. Further, an attempt by the claimant to add PMP’s parent company as an additional party had no legal basis due to the principle of separate legal personality.

Sought to resurrect proceedings

In his decision, Deputy Judge Carr said of the claimant’s position: “By a judgment handed down on 25 November 2022, I dismissed the Claimant’s claims against Amazon on the basis that his statement of case disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings. Notwithstanding that ruling, the Claimant has sought to continue (or resurrect) this litigation by seeking to have set aside, the terms of the consent order entered into between himself and PMP.”

He continued: “Whilst I accept that the frequent changes of name that have occurred as between PMP and PRL are not straightforward to follow, I have seen no evidence whatsoever so to suggest that there has been any conduct on the part of PMP which might permit the consent order to be set aside or revoked.”

Deputy Judge Carr concluded: “I have seen no evidence of any fraud or misrepresentation by PMP and it appears to me that the Claimant’s application to have them re-admitted as a party is wholly without merit. In addition, the Claimant has not identified any legal basis on which Challenge should be added as a party. Furthermore, given that, as evidenced by the terms of the judgment which I gave in November last year, the Claimant’s underlying claims are devoid of merit, I would in any event be disinclined to open up these proceedings to further costs by allowing the Claimant to press on with claims that are bound to fail.”

The claimant was therefore ordered to pay the costs of Amazon’s strike out application, and given a further 14 days to provide representations as to why he should not be required to pay the costs of this application and a civil restraint order not be made against him.