High Court finds former employee in contempt for fabricating discrimination and harassment allegations

Background

In Commerzbank AG v Ajao, the defendant, Mr Ajao, worked as a 'Know Your Client' analyst for six months before his employment was terminated during his probationary period. Soon after, he brought two Employment Tribunal claims against the bank and a number of individual colleagues, alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, victimisation, bullying and breach of contract.

All claims were dismissed, with the tribunal describing the defendant's evidence as "manifestly untrue". A £20,000 costs order was made against him.

The claimant bank later initiated contempt of court proceedings, alleging that the defendant had knowingly fabricated serious allegations, lied under oath and produced false documents to support his case.

Contempt of court

Contempt of court arises where a person interferes with the proper administration of justice. It can include making a false statement verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its accuracy, or knowingly giving false evidence on oath. Contempt proceedings are civil in form but apply the criminal standard of proof, and the potential penalties include imprisonment or a fine. 

The High Court’s decision

The court found the defendant to be in serious contempt of court. It concluded, to the criminal standard, that he had deliberately fabricated allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault and discrimination against colleagues, and had lied under oath to support those claims. His actions had therefore interfered with the due administration of justice. The fabricated allegations were serious, had the potential to lead to significant financial liability for the employer, and caused substantial personal harm to colleagues, including psychiatric injury to the individual wrongly accused of sexual assault.

The court also determined that he had falsely alleged racially demeaning language by another colleague and that his work diary, disclosed late in the Tribunal proceedings, contained entries added afterwards to create the impression of earlier complaints and a meeting that never took place. The court regarded these as deliberate attempts to mislead both the Employment Tribunal and the High Court. The defendant has been sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment. 

Learning points for employers

Cases of this kind are extremely rare in the employment sphere and indicate the seriousness with which the courts treat knowingly false evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of keeping clear, contemporaneous records and following fair internal processes, as these enabled the employer to demonstrate what had (and had not) happened. It is also a reminder that statements of truth must only be signed where the witness genuinely believes the evidence is accurate. 

For more information or advice, please contact Ella Straker in our Employment team.