Employment & Pensions Blog: Employee jailed for wicked and cynical allegations in the Employment Tribunal

The High Court’s decision in Commerzbank v Ajao serves as a stark reminder of the serious consequences of misleading the Employment Tribunal. In this case an employee received a 20-month sentence for contempt of court after the court found he had knowingly made false sexual-assault allegations against an innocent colleague.

Background

Mr Ajao was employed as an analyst in the London branch of the German Commerzbank in May 2019. Following a 6-month probation period he was dismissed in November 2019 because of a loss of trust and confidence arising out of his conduct and behaviour. 

Soon after dismissal, Mr Ajao submitted two Employment Tribunal claims alleging race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment and assault, victimisation, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract. The claims were submitted against seven respondents, Commerzbank and six of their employees. In February 2022, all Mr Ajao’s claims were dismissed. Whilst costs are very much the exception rather than the rule in the Employment Tribunals, in this case the Tribunal ordered Mr Ajao to pay £20,000 in costs because his conduct in bringing the claims wasn’t just unreasonable, it was found to be ‘disgraceful’. 

In March 2023, Commerzbank issued contempt of court proceedings against Mr Ajao in the High Court on the basis that he knowingly lied in the evidence he gave to the Employment Tribunal, and made baseless allegations designed to cause deliberate harm to the employees accused. 

False Claims

The bank raised 31 separate allegations of contempt against Mr Ajao, with most of the High Court’s focus being on the false allegations of sexual harassment and assault made against Mrs Q. Mr Ajao alleged Mrs Q subjected him to a pattern of sexual harassment starting in the Summer of 2019, with allegations ranging from Mrs Q making sexually suggestive comments escalating to her attempting to grab his crotch in the staff kitchen, after which he alleged she deliberately marked down his cases as retaliation. 

When challenged on why he waited so long to raise the allegations, Mr Ajao said he felt sorry for Ms Q in the wake of her mother’s death and was worried that raising these concerns inside his 6-month probation period would threaten his job. 

To support these claims Mr Ajao relied on a work diary that he produced part way through the Employment Tribunal proceedings, which he claimed was a contemporaneous record and included a number of notes referring to “sexual behaviour” and other conduct he complained of.

High Court Findings

In an unusually damning judgment last month, the High Court found:

• Mr Ajao’s allegations of sexual harassment were entirely fictitious, and that he knew all along that his claims were fictitious.
• His evidence was so inconsistent, and at times impossible, that it became clear these allegations were a deliberate invention.
• When looking at the competing testimonies of Mr Ajao and Ms Q, the documentary evidence almost without exception supported by Ms Q’s version of events, and did not support what Mr Ajao was saying.
• The supposedly contemporaneous work diary he produced mid-way through the Tribunal hearing did not seem to match the events, and it particularly didn’t match the emails he had sent at the time.
• Mr Ajao was in serious contempt of court in making false statements of truth, in giving false evidence under oath, and that such falsities were designed to interfere with the administration of justice.
• The court highlighted the suspicious timings in Mr Ajao’s evidence, finding that his excuse of not bringing his harassment claims earlier because of Mrs. Q’s bereavement as a wicked and cynical attempt to exploit Ms Q’s vulnerability.

The High Court sentenced Mr Ajao to 20 months in prison because his conduct was in contempt of court and it risked undermining public confidence in the justice system. 

Comment

As a society we of course need to ensure people have access to justice, and people must have the opportunity to raise claims. By its very nature, the two sides to an Employment Tribunal claim (indeed, any claim) will disagree, and it’s a given that witnesses will have different perspectives and opinions on what happened. That said, the High Court's decision should certainly make unscrupulous and vexatious Claimants take note. It’s not to say that every Claimant could find themselves in handcuffs, but the Employment Tribunal is not the place to act out a vendetta against your (former) employer. Claimants must have a reasonable basis and genuine belief in the claims they bring, and if they don’t (as Mr Ajao discovered) the consequences could be severe.   

If employers or individuals require assistance with any Employment Tribunal issues, please contact a member of our Employment Team.