A City investment banker who made false claims that he had been sexually harassed by his female manager is now being sued by his old bosses who want him to be found in contempt of court.
Damilare Ajao claimed the woman ‘flirtatiously’ told him she could ‘see his underwear’ while he worked for German finance giant Commerzbank in London in 2019.
Mr Ajao, who was sacked in November 2019, subsequently brought an employment tribunal claim against the bank, which included allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault against the manager – who was identified in court only as ‘Q’.
He claimed she made a sexualised comment about his string vest under his shirt and had tried to touch his designer belt.
But the case was thrown out by judge Anthony Snelson, who found the sexual harassment and assault allegations ‘were false and in large part made up’, and amounted to ‘pure invention’.
Mr Ajoa was also handed a £60,000 legal costs bill.
Commerzbank AG is now taking the unusual step of suing Mr Ajoa in a bid to get him found in contempt of court, which could see him face up to two years in prison.
It comes after his former bosses said the ‘made up’ allegations against the female manager had caused such distress they had resulted in her developing a ‘serious psychiatric illness’.
Damilare Ajao, who worked for German finance giant Commerzbank in London in 2019, claimed he was sexually harassed by a female manager – but a judge ruled this was ‘pure invention’ on his part
Asking London’s High Court to find that Mr Ajao deliberately lied, lawyers for Commerzbank told Mr Justice Martin Spencer that Q had gone on to ‘develop a serious psychiatric illness’ as a result of being accused.
But Mr Ajao is fighting the case, insisting that he had genuinely believed in what he told the tribunal, even if he ultimately lost his case.
The court heard that Mr Ajao worked for the bank at its offices in Gresham Street, in the City of London, between May and November 2019 before he was sacked.
Employment Judge Snelson in April 2024 dismissed his claim and said of the sex allegations: ‘We are satisfied that the claimant’s case under this head is simply false.
‘We accept the evidence of Q that she once commented to him in the office that she could see his vest through his shirt and that it was an interesting look, or words to that effect. She told us that the shirt was very thin and the vest seemed to be of a material resembling fishnet tights.
‘The remark was not made in a suggestive manner. Nor did it come across as a criticism.
‘We greatly regret to say that in our judgment the balance of the claimant’s case on sexual harassment, which included an exceedingly serious allegation of sexual assault, is, in its entirety, pure invention.
‘The acts and events on which he relies did not happen. There was no treatment of him by Q which could conceivably have been seen as amounting to harassment of any kind.
‘He repeatedly put forward assertions which were completely untrue and which he knew to be completely untrue. Numerous claims had no factual basis whatsoever.
Investment banking giant Commerzbank are now counter-suing their former employee and want him to be found in contempt of court
Mr Ajao worked for Commerzbank in London in 2019 (stock image)
‘The alleged events on which they were premised never happened. They were made up.
‘We found him a witness “contemptuous of his duty to tell the truth and unworthy of belief”.’
The bank is now suing its former employee, seeking to have him found in contempt.
Louis Browne KC, for the bank, told the judge Mr Ajao ‘made numerous allegations including race, … sex discrimination/sexual harassment, bullying, harassment, victimisation.
‘His claims for alleged discrimination and harassment by Q were false, were known by him to be false and were found so to be by the employment tribunal.
‘The allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and harassment by Q were of an extremely serious nature. The fact and nature of these allegations caused Q to develop a serious psychiatric illness.
‘In acting as he did, Mr Ajao knowingly made false statements of truth and/or interfered with the due administration of justice by giving evidence which he knew was false, which he knew would be likely to interfere with the administration of justice and which had the clear and obvious potential so to do.
‘He was contemptuous of his duty to tell the truth.’
Fiona Horlick KC, for Mr Ajao, reminded the court that the findings of the tribunal could not be taken as proof of his guilt in the contempt action, as the standard of proof is higher for a criminal case.
Cross examining ‘Q’ in the witness box, Mr Browne said: ‘A vest is underwear. You described the vest he was wearing as like fishnet stockings or tights. He was wearing a thin shirt and you could see the fishnet net vest through the thin shirt and you would have been able to see his body in the gaps. You would be able to see for example his nipples. You could see the rest of his body.’
She responded: ‘No, I don’t believe I would have been able to see his nipples. I don’t think a person would wear something like that to the office.’
The barrister continued: ‘You said you could see his vest and it looked interesting. That’s a remark about his underwear.’
‘That’s not the way I said it,’ insisted Q, adding that it was ‘a very casual comment’.
She added: ‘The whole look looked extraordinary. That’s why I made a comment. I didn’t say it in a sexual way.’
Mr Browne put to her: ‘Remarking upon a person of the opposite gender’s underwear and saying it looked interesting – do you admit that could be interpreted as being flirtatious?’
‘No,’ she replied. ‘It could have been if it was somebody who didn’t have this friendly relationship that we had. I wouldn’t say it to a random person.. In the context of our relationship, it doesn’t make sense. Absolutely not.’
But the barrister said the friendly relationship might make it more likely that it would be interpreted as flirting, something which she denied in the witness box.
Moving onto the incident with the Gucci belt, Mr Browne told Q: ‘You stretched out your hand towards the Gucci buckle as if you wanted to touch it… he instinctively knocked your hand away and you said, ‘I’m just looking’.’
Q responded: ‘Absolutely not. I never extended my arm or did anything suggestive of something indecent. It was just an innocuous thing to say, nothing special.
‘I didn’t reach out for his belt or try to touch it. That’s why I say it was from afar. The way I was saying all these things could not have been interpreted as being sexual’.
Ms Horlick in her written submissions told the court that the fact Mr Ajao is facing contempt allegations is extraordinary.
She said: ‘Those acting for Mr Ajao have found no reported case in which a party to employment proceedings has brought a contempt application alleging interference with the due administration of justice on the basis of conflicting witness evidence alone.
‘The bank must show that Mr Ajao undertook conduct interfering with the due administration of justice.
‘In this case the bank must show, to the criminal standard, that Mr Ajao knew the statements made by him were false, in that he made them dishonestly and intended that they would interfere with the administration of justice in some material way.
‘These proceedings have been brought in a haphazard, slipshod fashion. The bank has chosen to relitigate the facts underlying the employment claim in the High Court.
‘It is entitled to do that, but must prove its case to the criminal standard. It cannot do that where Mr Ajao’s evidence was truthful (or) the areas of factual dispute are riven with matters of interpretation and perception.
‘Mr Ajao will invite the court to find that the application is misconceived as a matter of law and is not supported by the evidence and to dismiss the application accordingly.’
The judge will give his ruling at a later date.
