A City banker who “made up” false claims he had been sexually harassed by a manager while wearing a string vest at work has been sent to jail and given a £150,000 court bill.
Damilare Ajao worked for German finance giant Commerzbank in its client life cycle management team in London in 2019 before being sacked in November of that year.
He claimed he was pestered by a female manager who “flirtatiously” told him she could see his nipples and tried to touch his Gucci belt buckle in the staff canteen.
Ajao subsequently brought an Employment Tribunal claim against the bank, including claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault against the manager, identified in court only as “Ms Q”.
The allegations centred on claims that the manager had made a sexualised comment about a string vest that he was wearing being visible through his shirt, and that he had been forced to slap her hand away when she reached out towards his designer belt.
His claim was thrown out, however, with the tribunal judge Anthony Snelson finding that the sexual harassment and assault allegations “were false and in large part made up”.
The case subsequently went to the High Court, where Mr Ajao was on Friday jailed for 20 months by Mr Justice Martin Spencer for “serious contempt of court”.
The judge also handed the separated father-of-two, who lives in Medway, Kent, a £150,000 bill towards the bank’s lawyer’s costs of bringing the contempt case.
Giving judgment, the judge said the allegations made at the employment tribunal – and persisted in as he denied contempt – amounted to a “deliberate and wicked assault” on the manager’s professional standing.
The court previously heard that Mr Ajao worked for the bank at its offices in Gresham Street, in the City of London, between May and November 2019 when he was sacked, and subsequently brought his unsuccessful tribunal claim.
Among his complaints were that Ms Q had a sexual motive in her dealings with him and he claimed she became “annoyed” at his rejection of sexual advances.
He claimed the manager had told him “I fancy you” and had on several occasions over a period of months commented that she could see his skin and nipples through his shirt.
He then launched a compensation claim to an Employment Tribunal, which the bank branded a “wholly bogus claim of sexual assault and harassment,” against Ms Q.
Employment Judge Snelson in April 2024 dismissed his claim and said that, although mention had been made of Mr Ajao’s vest, the allegations in Mr Ajao’s claim were “simply false”.
The case reached the High Court earlier this year, when Commerzbank launched its bid to have Mr Ajao jailed for contempt of court relating to his rejected allegations.
However, he denied contempt, claiming that it was his “perception” that he had been the victim of sexual harassment and assault, and that he was not deliberately untruthful.
But the bank’s barrister Louis Browne KC said that did not fit with the way his case was run at the tribunal, nor with the way he gave his evidence at the High Court.
“He was very clear in what he said in his ET claims – not that there was a perception that he was sexually harassed or assaulted,“ he argued.
“His case was very clear: these events happened and there was a clear intent and motive behind them. He was given ample opportunity to row back from these allegations.”
But Mr Ajao fought the case, denying contempt of court and insisting that he had genuinely believed in what he told the tribunal, even if he ultimately lost his case.
His barrister Sasha Wass KC said the bank had put its contempt case on the basis that Mr Ajao’s accusations were “wholly bogus” and knowingly so.
However, there was “foundation in evidence” for everything he said, with the manager Ms Q accepting in her evidence that there had been a conversation – although innocent – about his string vest, she said.
Finding Mr Ajao in contempt of court, Mr Justice Martin Spencer said Ms Q had been “entirely honest and credible” in her evidence to the court.
She had never said she could see Mr Ajao’s nipples, but only spoke to him in the context of a friendly relationship between people who sometimes talked about fashion.
Mr Ajao’s evidence was however false, he said, adding: “There were such discrepancies, inconsistencies and impossibilities in his evidence that it was quite incapable of acceptance.
“The more I heard of his evidence the more I became sure his evidence was untrue and deliberately so.”
Mr Ajao had said the comments and the alleged attempted sexual assault were the culmination of a pattern of behaviour over the summer and autumn of 2019, but the judge said it was in fact a “deliberate and wicked assault” on her professional standing.
“If there had been a mounting campaign of sexual harassment by Ms Q…that would have made the claim all the more serious and given credence to his claim that her conduct had the purpose or effect of violating his dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment,” he said.
“In my judgment, there wasn’t a shred of truth in any of the allegations the defendant has made against Ms Q. I’m sure that the allegations made were untrue and deliberately so, and a deliberate attempt to deceive the tribunal, compounded by lies told to this court.”
The court heard Mr Ajao had lost a successful career in finance and now relies on Universal Credit, while his marriage had also failed and he now lives alone.
But the judge said the effect on Ms Q had been “predictably serious”. She said she had felt like a “criminal” and described her ordeal as “insulting and painful”, resulting in her taking sleeping medication.
Mr Ajao had also tried to cover up his lack of reporting the allegations at the time by saying he felt Ms Q was sensitive at that time due to a family bereavement.
But the judge said that was a “cynical” attempt to “exploit genuine grief”, part of a “fictitious” set of allegations which amounted to a “serious contempt of court.”
Addressing Mr Ajao, he continued: “Your lies were deliberate and perpetuated over a significant period of time and included the giving of false evidence on oath.
“They represented an attempt to deceive the court into awarding you substantial damages.
“The most significant fact is that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody.
“The result is that I commit you to prison for 20 months.”
The judge said Mr Ajao would be eligible for early release on licence after serving eight months in prison, but also ordered that he pay £150,000 towards the bank’s costs.
