Damilare Ajao v Commerzbank AG

In contempt proceedings arising from deliberately false statements and fabricated evidence, the Court of Appeal may intervene on sentence where it was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Sentencing must reflect the nature of contempt and relevant contempt principles; a guideline for a different offence, such as assault, is an improper basis for fixing the sentence. Deliberate lies made over time to obtain damages, particularly where they seriously affect a party and witness, may justify immediate custody. A minor unsupported allegation may be set aside without undermining discrete, independently supported findings on more serious contempts.

Damilare Ajao brought unsuccessful employment tribunal proceedings against his former employer and six individuals, alleging discrimination and sexual harassment. The employer obtained permission to commence contempt proceedings in relation to 13 allegations. Following a six-day High Court hearing, Martin Spencer J found 12 allegations proved to the criminal standard and imposed 20 months' imprisonment and a £150,000 costs order in [2025] EWHC 2904 (KB).

On appeal, the appellant withdrew several grounds and challenged the remaining contempt findings, the conduct of the proceedings, and the sanction. The Court of Appeal also reviewed the sentence despite the absence of a formal notice of appeal against it. The central issues were whether one allegation was proved, whether the remaining findings involved procedural or fairness errors, and whether the sentence and refusal to suspend it were justified.

Disposition. Permission to amend was granted in relation to grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. The appeal was allowed only in relation to ground 3, concerning ground 26 of the contempt allegations, and dismissed on all other grounds.

1. Findings of contempt. The judge had addressed the factual premise that Mrs Q made sexual advances and had rejected it on the evidence. There was therefore no failure to give reasons or breach of Article 6. Material not adduced in evidence, including witness statements not relied upon by the appellant, could not found a complaint that the judge had failed to consider evidence. Evidence about whether Mrs Q had failed other employees was also immaterial to whether she had sexually harassed the appellant.
2. Ground 26. The evidence did not establish to the required standard that the appellant had fabricated the allegation concerning the Nigerian dish. The respondent had indicated that this aspect would not be relied upon. The finding of contempt on ground 26 was therefore set aside. It was a minor and discrete allegation and provided no basis for doubting the independently supported findings on the more serious contempts.
3. Public interest and alleged collateral purpose. Under CPR 813(5), permission was required before proceedings of this type could be brought. The permission judge had found that proceedings on the relevant allegations were proportionate and in the public interest. That was sufficient to establish the public-interest requirement for the purposes of the appeal. No evidence before the trial judge supported the alleged improper purpose, and no proper abuse-of-process application had been made.
4. Sentence. The Court adopted the approach in Attorney General v Crosland, bearing in mind the objectives identified in Willoughby and the observations in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company v Dr Zafar. It was wrong to use the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Assault. The contempts concerned false allegations and fabricated evidence undermining the administration of justice, not assault, and the assault guideline carried a higher maximum and starting point. That error influenced the original sentence.
5. Reassessment. A fine was inadequate. The 11 proven contempts justified a sentence of about 12 months before mitigation. The five mitigating factors identified by the judge justified a reduction of four months. The appellant's lack of remorse provided no additional mitigation. Immediate custody was necessary. The factors supporting suspension were absent: there was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation, no strong personal mitigation within the guideline, and no significant harmful impact on the children. The substituted sentence was eight months' imprisonment, reduced by three days already spent in custody. The costs order was separate, compensatory for costs incurred, and not a punitive fine.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2026] EWCA Civ 147, the appeal was allowed only in relation to ground 26 of the contempt allegations. The 20-month sentence was quashed and replaced with eight months' imprisonment less three days.
• High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division — In [2025] EWHC 2904 (KB), Martin Spencer J found 12 of 13 contempt allegations proved to the criminal standard and imposed 20 months' imprisonment, together with a £150,000 costs order.
• Employment Tribunal — The appellant's discrimination and sexual-harassment claims against his former employer and six individuals were dismissed.