The High Court has recently delivered a judgment emphasising the severe consequences of dishonesty in employment tribunal proceedings. The decision acts as a warning to parties who attempt to mislead the tribunal through fabricated evidence or false statements.
Commerzbank AG v Ajao [2025] EWHC 2904 (KB)
Facts of the case
Mr Ajao, a former employee of Commerzbank AG, was dismissed on 21 November 2019 for conduct-related reasons. Following his dismissal, Mr Ajao brought various wide-ranging claims in the employment tribunal, including discrimination, harassment, victimisation, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.
Among other claims, Mr Ajao made allegations of sexual harassment and assault against a colleague, asserting that she had made inappropriate comments about his clothing and attempted to touch him inappropriately. In addition, he alleged discrimination and unwanted physical contact from another colleague. Mr Ajao presented a ‘work diary’ during proceedings to corroborate his claims.
The tribunal dismissed all of Mr Ajao’s claims and concluded that he made up allegations, manufactured documents (including the ‘work diary’) and tampered with audio recordings to substantiate his false claims. The tribunal held that Mr Ajao “saw the preparation of evidence as a means of presenting a narrative calculated to further his interests, entirely without regard to whether it was true”. Consequently, a £20,000 costs order was made against him.
Following the tribunal’s decision, Commerzbank brought contempt of court proceedings against Mr Ajao in the High Court. The bank alleged that Mr Ajao had knowingly made false claims in his employment tribunal claim, lied in evidence before the tribunal and fabricated events to strengthen his claim.
High Court decision
The High Court found 12 of the 13 allegations of contempt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court confirmed that the allegations made by Mr Ajao in his employment tribunal claim were unfounded and, crucially, that he was aware of their falsity. Mr Ajao had intentionally lied in statements of truth and under oath, intending to mislead the tribunal and secure damages. The Court highlighted the serious nature and impact of Mr Ajao’s allegations, noting that his fabrications caused serious psychiatric harm to a colleague. His actions were not only dishonest but calculated to exploit the colleague’s vulnerability, demonstrating a profound disregard for the truth and the impact on others.
The High Court decided that the contempt proceedings were proportionate given the seriousness of Mr Ajao’s allegations and their interference with the administration of justice. It has since been reported that Mr Ajao was sentenced to a 20-month prison sentence.
The Birketts view
In practice, employment tribunals are usually reluctant to find a claimant to have been intentionally dishonest, meaning that contempt of court proceedings are unlikely to succeed other than in very rare cases. Nevertheless, the ruling serves as a clear reminder of the importance of honesty and integrity in tribunal proceedings and illustrates the High Court’s willingness to protect the administration of justice.
Employment disputes are frequently emotionally charged; however, parties must recognise that dishonesty during proceedings carries severe risks. Fabricating evidence or lying under oath not only undermines a claim, but it can also lead to financial penalties through the awarding of costs or even criminal consequences, including imprisonment.
Employers and their witnesses should maintain transparency and honesty throughout the tribunal process. This decision makes clear that parties who fabricate evidence risk far more than losing a claim and may even jeopardise their liberty and reputation.
Key Contacts
The content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information in relation to this article please contact the author in the first instance. Law covered as at November 2025.