Commerzbank AG v Damilare Ajao

In committal proceedings, the adequacy of an application notice is assessed in context. The alleged contemnor must be able to understand the substance of the allegations and the case to be met. Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 81.4 requires the application to identify the nature of the alleged contempt and provide a brief summary of the facts. It does not require every evidential detail to appear in the notice where the detail is contained in supporting evidence. A prior determination of the adequacy of the notice may also prevent the issue being reopened. At the close of the claimant’s evidence, dismissal is appropriate only where the evidence cannot properly support the allegations. Where the evidence, taken cumulatively and with reasonable inferences, provides a case to answer, the committal allegations should proceed.

The claimant applied to commit the defendant for contempt of court under CPR rule 81.4. The allegations concerned the defendant’s alleged use of knowingly false evidence and fabricated documents in earlier Employment Tribunal proceedings, including allegations of sexual harassment, workplace misconduct and a manufactured work diary.

At the close of the claimant’s evidence, and before being required to elect whether to give evidence, the defendant applied for dismissal. He argued that the claim form was insufficiently particularised and that the evidence did not meet the criminal standard required for contempt.

The adequacy of the application notice had previously been considered by Mrs Justice Eady in [2024] EWHC 3168 (KB), who had permitted the proceedings to continue. The issues were whether that question could be reopened and whether the evidence, viewed at that stage, disclosed a case to answer.

1. Application notice. The challenge to the form of the committal application was res judicata because it had already been considered and rejected by Mrs Justice Eady. In any event, the court adopted her reasoning. Under CPR rule 81.4, the notice must state the nature of the alleged contempt and briefly summarise the facts relied upon. It need not contain every detail of the evidence. The notice is read in the light of the background known to the parties, provided the defendant can understand the substance of the allegations and the case to be met.
2. Context. Rule 81.4 accommodates different forms of contempt, including breach of an undertaking, breach of an order and contempt based on knowingly false evidence or a bogus claim. The necessary degree of particularity therefore depends on the nature and context of the alleged contempt. The defendant was sufficiently aware of the allegations and their basis.
3. Evidence concerning Mrs Q. The evidence, if accepted, supported the claimant’s case that the allegations of sexual harassment were invented rather than the product of an innocent difference in interpretation or recollection. Allegations 2–6 therefore disclosed a case to answer.
4. Work diary and workplace allegations. The diary, contemporaneous emails, witness evidence and apparent chronology provided a sufficient evidential basis for allegations 29 and 30 concerning manufacture of the diary. The timing and content of the defendant’s allegation that Lola called him “this boy”, including its later emergence after the bank’s grounds of resistance, provided a case to answer on allegations 10, 11 and 31.
5. Allegations concerning Mrs Q’s bereavement. The timing of the defendant’s alleged knowledge of the bereavement, his later conduct and the wider evidential matrix provided a sufficient basis for allegations 24–26 to proceed.

The defendant’s application was refused. The court retained an open mind as to the ultimate accuracy and veracity of the evidence.

Before the present hearing, Mrs Justice Eady considered the adequacy of the committal application in [2024] EWHC 3168 (KB) and rejected the defendant’s challenge. The present court adopted that reasoning and refused the application to dismiss.