Ajao v Commerzbank AG

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant brought claims in The Tribunal against Company A and six individuals for discrimination and sexual harassment, seeking damages in excess of £160,000. Those claims were dismissed. Company A applied for permission to bring contempt proceedings alleging that the Appellant had deliberately made false statements in witness statements and given false evidence on oath. Permission was granted by Judge Eady in respect of 13 of 31 allegations after a two‑day hearing. The committal proceedings were heard by Judge Spencer over six days in the High Court. Judge Spencer found 12 of the 13 allegations proven to the criminal standard, committed the Appellant to 20 months' imprisonment, and ordered costs of £150,000. The Appellant appealed as of right under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, sought to amend his grounds, and applied to challenge both the findings of contempt and the sentence. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and applications to amend in February 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court findings of contempt (12 of 13 allegations) were safe or infected by error (including alleged failures to give reasons, to address evidential material, and alleged procedural defects).
2. Whether the custodial sentence of 20 months was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and, if so, whether a suspended sentence should have been imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to address specified allegations and particular paragraphs of The Tribunal pleadings, breaching duties to give reasons and Article 6 rights.
• The judge ignored or failed to consider witness statements/evidence (including from Witness C and another former employee) which would affect credibility findings.
• Specific allegation (ground 26) was not proven and in part had been conceded by Company A's solicitor.
• The Appellant did not have adequate time to prepare for the sanctions hearing.
• In relation to sanction: the judge erred by (a) failing adequately to consider the Sentencing Guideline on community and custodial sentences, (b) applying Sentencing Council Guidelines for assault (including treating harm/culpability by reference to an assault guideline), (c) mis‑categorising culpability and harm, and (d) imposing immediate custody combined with a large costs order produced an unduly oppressive cumulative punishment.

Respondent's Arguments

• Permission to bring proceedings was properly granted by Judge Eady on public interest and prima facie grounds; the High Court judge correctly assessed witness credibility and proved contempts.
• Any evidence not put before the High Court (e.g. statements not admitted) was not part of the trial and could not give rise to error in Judge Spencer's reasons.
• The Respondent did not oppose the Court of Appeal considering the sentence on its merits.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the procedural history, the grant of permission by Judge Eady, the High Court trial before Judge Spencer, and the Appellant's proposed amended grounds. It proceeded as follows:

• The Court examined each proposed ground. It concluded Judge Spencer had assessed witness credibility (accepting Witness A and Witness B in full) and had applied the criminal standard of proof. The Court found no error in the treatment of most challenges to credibility or alleged omissions where the material complained of was not before the trial judge.
• On ground 3 (challenge to Count 26 concerning a claimed Nigerian dish), the Court accepted that the Respondent's solicitor had indicated that the allegation would not be relied upon and that the available evidence did not permit the Court to be sure the Appellant had fabricated that particular account. The Court therefore allowed the appeal in respect of ground 26 and set aside the finding of contempt as to that count.
• The Court considered sentencing afresh under the Crosland approach. It found that Judge Spencer erred by applying Sentencing Council Guidelines for assault (including apparent reliance on a grievous bodily harm marker) when the offences were contempts involving fabricated evidence; that error influenced the judge towards selecting the maximum available custodial term (two years).
• The Court nonetheless agreed that only immediate custody was appropriate. Applying appropriate assessment of culpability and harm to the proved contempts (11 proved allegations after setting aside one), the Court identified a suitable starting point of about 12 months before mitigation, applied the same mitigation reductions identified by Judge Spencer (total four months), and concluded an eight‑month custodial term was appropriate.
• The Court applied time already spent in custody (three days) and declined to suspend the sentence after considering the Sentencing Council Guideline on community and custodial sentences and the absence of realistic prospects of rehabilitation or sufficiently strong personal mitigation.

Holding and Implications

Final Ruling: The Court granted permission to amend in relation to grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10; allowed the appeal only in respect of ground 3 (concerning ground 26 of the original allegations) and otherwise dismissed the appeal on the findings of contempt. The Court allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a custodial term of eight months' imprisonment less three days.

Implications:

• The finding of contempt as to one discrete allegation (ground 26) is set aside; the remaining contempts (11 proved counts) stand.
• The Appellant's custodial sentence is reduced from 20 months to eight months less three days; the Court declined to suspend that sentence.
• The costs order was treated separately and no appeal against costs was determined; no new general legal precedent beyond applying established authorities was created.