Commerzbank AG v Damilare Ajao

Pursuant to permission granted by Eady J on 6 November 2024, the Claimant brings proceedings for contempt of court against the Defendant arising from proceedings in the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) brought by the Defendant which were dismissed by the ET in a judgment dated 14 February 2022.

In the course of this judgment, I shall be referring to a number of individuals who feature in the events with which I am concerned. It will make understanding of this judgment easier if I give here a description of who each of these individuals is:

Before dealing with the background to this application, it is appropriate to mention three matters:

The Defendant, who is a Black British National of African origin, commenced employment with the Claimant on 1 May 2019 in the position of KYC Analyst with the corporate title of Assistant Vice-President. He had a 6 month probationary period which expired on 1 November 2019. On 21 November 2019, his employment was terminated due to a loss of trust and confidence related to his conduct and behaviour.

Soon after the termination of his employment, the Defendant issued two claims in the ET. The first, issued on 31 December 2019, was against the following parties: the Claimant (as First Respondent), Lars Vogelmann (as Second Respondent), Hope Jackson (as Third Respondent), Gary Booth (as Fourth Respondent), Yogita Mehta (as Fifth Respondent), Q (as Sixth Respondent), and Artur Kowalik (as Seventh Respondent). He alleged race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment/assault, victimisation, wrongful dismissal, bullying and harassment and breach of contract. The second, issued on 21 January 2020, was against the same seven Respondents as in the first proceedings. The Defendant sought compensation alleging discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, sex and race, victimisation, and sexual and racial harassment (together with other claims). The two sets of proceedings were consolidated on 18 May 2020.

In the course of the ET proceedings the following interim orders were made:

The substantive hearing before the ET came before Employment Judge Snelson on 19 October 2021 and lasted 9 days. All of the Defendant’s claims were dismissed in a judgment entered on the Register on 14 February 2022. The Claimant made an application for a costs order against the Defendant and on 5 July 2022 the Defendant was ordered to make a contribution towards the Claimant’s costs in the sum of £20,000. That sum remains outstanding.

The Claim Form was issued in these CPR Part 8 proceedings on 8 March 2023. In them, it is alleged that:

The detailed allegations of contempt, comprising 31 in number, were set out in an Affidavit of Philip Ross Cameron, the Claimant’s solicitor, dated 2 March 2023 made in support of the application for permission to bring these proceedings. Eady J permitted 13 of them to be pursued, as set out below.

It is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant falsely alleged that he had been subjected to sexual harassment by Mrs Q because she engaged in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature. In particular, he falsely alleged, in a witness statement of 17 October 2021:

The contempt of court alleged to have been committed by making the above statements consisted in the giving of false evidence on oath/affirmation and interference with the due administration of justice. It was the Claimant’s case that the Defendant manufactured a wholly bogus claim of sexual assault/harassment against Q, a claim he knew to be wholly bogus and in which he persisted to a full hearing. He did so to obtain compensation. These wholly false/bogus allegations had had a very serious adverse effect on Q’s health.

These Grounds arise out of the Claimant’s case that the Defendant falsely asserted that he had not raised his allegations in respect to Mrs Q’s alleged sexual assault/harassment earlier because of his concern for Mrs Q’s vulnerable state arising from the death of Mrs Q’s mother. In particular, he falsely alleged, in the witness statement of 17 October 2021:

In respect of this Ground, it is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant manufactured a false entry in his work diary for the sole purpose of seeking to bolster his false claims about the timing and sequence of events. In particular, he falsely made a note in his diary about matters he wished to discuss with Yogita Mehta the following day arising out of his grievance against Lola Ogunfowara which he said he made on the evening of 18 November 2019.

It is the Claimant’s case that there is an inexplicable inconsistency between the Defendant’s evidence that he spoke to Ms Burgess of the Human Resources department on the morning of 19 November 2019, and his diary entry indicating that he had spoken to Ms Burgess on 18 November 2019.

It is the Claimant’s case that the Defendant fabricated these allegations in order to bolster his claim in the employment tribunal when in fact what had happened was that he had referred to Ms Ogunfowora as “this girl” stating that “he did not want this girl to mark his cases”.

In support of these allegations, I heard, or took into account, the following evidence:

In her evidence, Mrs Q confirmed that her Affidavit at page 60 of the Core Bundle and her witness statement made for the ET at page 108 of the Core Bundle were both true. She identified at page 2153 of the Additional Bundle the Exhibit to her Affidavit. She also confirmed that the evidence that she gave before the ET was true. In those documents, and in her evidence before the ET, she strongly denied the suggestion that she had done anything which was, or could have been interpreted to be, sexual harassment of the Defendant.

Mr Browne KC then took Mrs Q through what the Defendant had alleged at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Particulars of Claim in the ET (page 41 of the Additional Bundle). At paragraph 13, the Defendant had pleaded (where he is referred to as “the Claimant”):

“13.

During the course of October 2019, the Claimant’s colleague, Q made several comments in relation to the protected characteristic of sex. Inter alia, Q made the following comments:

a.

On several occasions in the summer of 2019, commenting that she could see the Claimant’s skin;

b.

On several occasions in the summer of 2019, stating “I can see your nipples";

c.

On week commencing 7 October 2019, stating “I can see your underwear”;

d.

On week commencing 7 October 2019, stating “I fancy you”;

e.

On 21 October 2019, marking a case of the Claimant’s down because he had refused her sexual advances.”

In respect of all the allegations at paragraphs 13a to 13d Mrs Q strongly denied what was being alleged saying in each case that what had been set out was entirely false. It followed that she also denied she had marked down the Defendant’s work because he had refused her sexual advances.

Paragraph 14 of the Particulars of Claim alleged:

14.

On 11 October 2019, Q was talking with the Claimant in the kitchen area of the Respondent’s premises when she complimented the Claimant’s belt. Q then went to grab the Claimant’s jeans zip / crotch area. The Claimant had to swat Q’s hand away.

Mrs Q said she remembered talking about the belt which she had said was a nice belt and she had asked if it was genuine. She described this as a very casual comment but the suggestion she went to grab him in the crotch area was untrue. She said: “I strongly deny it, it is an abhorrent allegation. He didn’t swat my hand away: it never happened.”

On 15 June 2020, the Defendant had provided “Further and Better Particulars” of his Particulars of Claim in the ET and Mr Browne then took Mrs Q through those Further and Better Particulars, which were to be found at and from page 107 of the Additional Bundle. Paragraph 4.1.3.1 were further particulars of the allegation at paragraph 13a of the original particulars (see paragraph 15 above) as follows:

“During the summer of 2019 the Sixth Respondent [Q] would comment that she could see the Claimant’s skin from his net vest owing to the thin shirt worn by him during the hot weather. These comments were made sporadically by the Sixth Respondent during the summer of 2019 whenever the Claimant would bump into her in the open office. It is not known whether there were any witnesses to these comments.”

Mrs Q said that when they were at work, they saw each other every day. They didn’t always work at the same desks. On one occasion he was two desks away but later in the year he was seated in another row and she could only see his back. They were still quite close to each other however. She said she would never have made the remark alleged. She said that the Defendant would often talk about clothing as he said he was interested in fashion and he often complimented her on her clothes which was nice of him. She reciprocated, eg about his shoes. He was wearing a peculiar piece of clothing under his thin shirt like a fishnet, it was nothing she had ever seen before and she said something like it was an “interesting look”. There was no sexual motive and she felt he could not have perceived it in that way.

The Defendant also provided further particulars of the other matters alleged in paragraph 13 of the Particulars of Claim in the ET (see paragraph 18 above) as follows:

4.1.3.2 As to the comment “I can see your nipples”

i)

During the summer of 2019 the Sixth Respondent would comment that she could see the Claimant’s nipple from his net vest owing to the thin shirt worn by him during the hot weather. These comments were made sporadically by the Sixth Respondent during the summer of 2019 whenever the Claimant would bump into her in the open office.

ii)

It is not known whether there were any witnesses to these comments.

4.1.3.3 As to the comment “I can see your underwear”

i)

During the summer of 2019 including 7 October 2019 the Sixth Respondent would comment that she could see the Claimant’s net vest owing to the thin shirt worn by him during the hot weather. These comments were made sporadically by the Sixth Respondent during the summer of 2019 whenever the Claimant would bump into her in the open office. The Claimant would give the Sixth Respondent disapproving looks and would just walk away. It got to a point where the Claimant would stop wearing his net vest and wore instead a plain white vest in the hope that it would discourage the Sixth Respondent from making further comments

ii)

It is not known whether there were any witnesses to these comments.

4.1.3.4 As to the comment “I fancy you”

i)

During a dressed down day on or about Friday, 7 October 2019, the Claimant wore a black fancy t-shirt. The Sixth Respondent then said to the Claimant by the lift lobby “I fancy you”.

ii)

It is not known whether there were any witnesses.

4.1.3.5 As to the Sixth Respondent trying to grab the Claimant/s jeans zip and crotch area

i)

The Claimant asserts that this was in fact done on or about the 3rd week of October 2019 (not 11 October 2019 as pleaded in the POC2) and on a Friday (dressed down day).

ii)

On that day the Claimant wore a pair of jeans, trainers and a sweatshirt.

iii)

The Sixth Respondent and the Claimant were by the coffee breakout area. The Sixth Respondent leant over towards the Claimant’s crotch area on the pretext of inspecting his Gucci belt when she then tried to grab the Claimant’s zip. The Claimant had to swat the Sixth Respondent’s hand away and he then told her that this was not allowed.

iii)

The Claimant is not aware whether there were any witnesses, but the incident happened near a CCTV.

Mrs Q said that these allegations and particulars were all completely false. She said that “not a word of it is true, it is offensive and horrible”. She confirmed that her mother had died in tragic circumstances and the Defendant expressed sympathy to her many times. There was one occasion when they went for lunch, shortly before she left the bank. She had planned the lunch with her other colleague, Daren, and the Defendant asked if he could join them and they agreed. He had invited himself. Mrs Q said that when she and the Defendant talked about their clothes, the Defendant did not appear upset at all, it was in fact he who started the conversations which were always friendly. She said there was nothing unusual or unprofessional about their relationship: he was friendly and she tried to be friendly in return and to reciprocate. She said that the Defendant had invited her and Daren to the pub but she had never accepted, he was more friendly than others.

Paragraph 4.1.3.6 of the Further and Better Particulars related to the allegation that Mrs Q marked down the Defendant’s work because he had rejected her advances and stated as follows:

4.1.3.6 On 21 October 2019, marking a case of the Claimant’s down because he had refused her sexual advances.

i)

The Claimant asserts that there were a number of incidents where the Sixth Respondent made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to the Claimant and or whose conduct was of a sexual nature (see above) and when the Claimant rejected the Sixth Respondent’s advances the Sixth Respondent sought to treat the Claimant less favourably by marking the Claimant down on a file by issuing a “procedural Risk Failure’’ on the file despite the Claimant having followed the correct procedure. The Claimant had earlier forwarded an email from Ms Dalilah (who was in the client relations department and acted as a relations officer between the client and the First Respondent) and referred the Sixth Respondent to the relevant section of the First Respondent’s procedure and confirmed that the Claimant had in fact followed the correct procedure. Ms Dalilah then requested that the procedural risk failure mark on the file be removed by the Sixth Respondent. However, as the Sixth Respondent failed to acknowledge Ms Dalilah’s email and to take action to correct things Ms Dalilah had to come to the Sixth Respondent’s desk to sort things out in favour of the Claimant.

ii)

Following the above incident the Sixth Respondent came to the Claimant’s desk three times within 5 minutes on the same day (as would have been captured by a CCTV Camera by the Claimant’s desk) and became very emotional; the Sixth Respondent winked at the Claimant before she left to go to her desk. Prior to the Sixth Respondent leaving to go to her desk she warned the Claimant not to involve Ms Dalilah going forward. It was at this point the Claimant was informed by another Analyst (who sat beside the Claimant) that the Sixth Respondent was leaving the First Respondent.

iii)

The Claimant subsequently received two send-off party invites from the Sixth Respondent which the Claimant declined to accept on both occasions.

Again, Mrs Q said it was all nonsense. She had in fact passed his case, she had not marked it down at all. She probably did go to his desk to discuss the case and she agreed she got emotional at one stage because he wouldn’t listen and was rejecting her feedback. As the documents show, this was a theme in relation to the Defendant and Lola Ogunfowora made very similar allegations in an email to Yogita Mehta on 19 November 2019: see paragraph 100 below. At no stage did she wink at him. The invitation to leaving drinks was sent to the whole team and the Defendant didn’t attend. At page 2215 of the Additional Bundle, Mrs Q identified the Defendant’s message on her leaving card which read: “Hello. Live the life you love and love the life you live.” It was suggested on behalf of the Claimant that this is not a message that would have been left by someone who felt they were the victim of sexual harassment.

In answer to questions from Ms Horlick, Mrs Q confirmed that before she gave evidence in the ET she had read the Defendant’s witness statement and familiarised herself with all the documents in the case. She confirmed she had had meetings with the Claimant’s solicitors and the barrister had been present at the second meeting. She had seen the Particulars of Claim and the Further and Better Particulars. She had also seen the witness statements of others, namely the other Respondents to the Claim. She had sat in the ET and heard the Defendant’s evidence before she gave evidence herself.

Mrs Q confirmed that she was a KYC reviewer whereby she reviewed the cases of KYC Analysts. The Defendant was one of the Analysts in her team. She was in a position of seniority but only in the sense that she was doing the checking: they were all nominally Assistant Vice Presidents. Ms Horlick asked if Mrs Q was aware that the Defendant was a probationer and she answered: “I paid no attention to that: I was unaware of that and the same went for my awareness in respect of other colleagues.” She agreed that she was aware of him joining the bank but didn’t remember exactly when this was. She knew that everyone was under probation for a period but it wasn’t always 6 months, it could be 3 months. She wasn’t aware for how long Analysts were on probation. She was not aware that they needed to have passed four cases in order to pass their probationary period. She said: “I had no awareness of that, I was not told that by my manager.” She was aware that the bank was under pressure in relation to regulatory oversight. She also knew that the Defendant was married and had two small children. She didn’t know he was the only bread-winner.

Mrs Q agreed that, as a Reviewer, she needed to be aware of current and changing procedures. She was asked if it was serious for the work of an Analyst to be risk failed and she answered that it depended which requirement was not passed and how serious it was but overall she agreed that it is serious for an Analyst to be risk failed. She agreed that all risks at the bank need to be mitigated and it could be serious for the bank if something was missed. She was asked about Client B which was the case of the Defendant that she had reviewed. She agreed that Client B was only dealing in Exchange Traded Funds. Ms Horlick asked if the procedures had changed so there was no need for an anti-money laundering letter and Mrs Q disagreed: she said she only looked at the procedure that was current at the time. She agreed she had initially risk failed the Defendant’s work because there was no such letter and the fact that there was no need for such a letter had not been implemented into the procedure. However, once the Defendant provided her with the email chain she accepted the position and changed her review to a pass. Although the Defendant had initially made the necessary checks, he had not provided her with the emails which confirmed that, so initially she was not aware of the position. She had accepted his explanation. Ms Horlick asked if the Defendant had updated the relationship summary profile that she had approved the case and she agreed. She learned that in some circumstances there was no need for an AML letter. She agreed she had accidentally uploaded the wrong checklist but said the important thing was that she had approved the case which meant that it had passed. She accepted she uploaded the wrong checklist which still showed a risk fail and that the Defendant had wanted it corrected but she denied that this had the potential to affect him negatively. She agreed that the Defendant had escalated the matter to Yogita Mehta but Mrs Q said she wasn’t able to change it because the case had already been approved and passed and she couldn’t over-ride that. Ms Horlick asked if he was very concerned about it and she replied: “No. I saw an email pointing out the error which I accepted.” She denied that she had dismissed his concerns saying that she had told the Defendant that the checklist would not be taken into account at his assessment. She denied she shouted at him at this stage. She agreed she had raised her voice to him at the earlier stage when she had given him the initial feedback and he had dismissed everything she was saying.

Mrs Q said that they were work colleagues and there was nothing more to it than that. They were not friends in that they did not socialise outside work. They had talked about fashion. She said that they also discussed other things and that it wasn’t just fashion. She found his friendliness excessive: other colleagues had not invited her to play table football or given her chewing gum or invited her to go to the pub, as he had. Ms Horlick put that Mrs Q had not mentioned previously the Defendant inviting her to the pub and put to her that the Defendant is a Muslim, he doesn’t drink and doesn’t go to pubs. Mrs Q said that she didn’t know he was a Muslim and that he did go to the pub with Daren and had asked her to go along with them. He approached her at her desk almost every day. She knew that English wasn’t his first language and that his first language was an African language and she knew he was from Nigeria originally. Another employee, Lola, was also from Nigeria and they spoke the same language.

Mrs Q agreed that the employee handbook required employees to wear smart clothes from Monday to Thursday but Friday was a ‘dress down’ day. She agreed that the Defendant always wore a suit on Monday to Thursday. She agreed that it would be for Yogita Mehta to address any transgressions of the dress code as the Defendant’s manager, not her. She agreed she commented once on the Defendant’s look. She said: “I don’t remember if I specifically referred to his vest, but I said something about his designer choice although I don’t think I used those words. It was like fishnet tights and very conspicuous. I’d never seen such a thing before, I could see it through his thin shirt.” She agreed she could see his body in the gaps of the string vest. Ms Horlick put that she would have been able to see the Defendant’s nipples but she denied this. She said she didn’t think someone should wear that to the office and she didn’t remember seeing his nipples. She agreed she thought it was inappropriate dress for the office but she also agreed that this would be something for Yogita Mehta to raise with him. She said: “I didn’t say I could see his vest. I would never have said anything like that.” Ms Horlick put to Mrs Q that she had said exactly that in her Affidavit at paragraph 18 and in her witness statement at paragraph 36. She put that as she could see his vest it followed that she could also see his body. Mrs Q said that she had told the Defendant it looked interesting, but this had not been said in any sexual way at all. It was his whole look that was interesting. Ms Horlick asked if Mrs Q understood that it could have been interpreted as being flirtatious and she denied this. She said that might have been the case with someone with whom she didn’t have the same friendly relationship but their friendly relationship meant that it would not have been taken as flirtatious. Ms Horlick put that their increased friendliness would have made it more likely to be so interpreted and she denied this saying that was not the case in the context of their relationship. She denied that she had commented on it more than once.

Mrs Q confirmed that she liked the Defendant. She agreed that she might have got in the lift at some point. She agreed she had pointed out his belt on one occasion: this had been from afar. It was not in the coffee area. The coffee area is open and visible to people sitting near it. She couldn’t remember where the remark about the belt happened. She said it could have been at any other location but was probably near her desk. She couldn’t remember her being alone with the Defendant in the coffee area at any stage. Ms Horlick asked what she meant by ‘afar’ and she said that they were not close together, she meant they were not adjacent to each other although they still could have been quite close. Ms Horlick asked why she had pointed and she replied she was just asking about it. It was a normal conversation as with their other conversations about fashion. Ms Horlick put that she had stretched her hand towards the Gucci buckle and the Defendant had misinterpreted this and Mrs Q denied this saying it was not possible he could have misinterpreted what she did. He had not knocked her hand away. She was sure she never made a remark about the belt in a way that could have been interpreted sexually and it was never flirtatious. She couldn’t remember having a few days off in mid-August.

Ms Horlick put that whilst she was away the Defendant had brought in a spicy dish and she had become aware of office discussion about the spicy food and Mrs Q denied this saying she was not involved in any such conversation. After her mother’s accident, she had not returned to her home country immediately because she was waiting for her mother to be discharged whereupon she and her sister were intending to go to her home country to help their mother with her rehabilitation but her mother had died unexpectantly at the end of August and she had then taken three weeks compassionate leave. She said everyone in the office knew about it. She had not received an email from the Defendant about going to an Asian restaurant for spicy food.

Mrs Q agreed that she, the Defendant and Daren had gone out for lunch: no reservation had been made because this is somewhere that always had places available. She couldn’t remember that the Defendant had not accepted the invitation she had sent to the whole team to come for leaving drinks.

In re-examination, Mrs Q confirmed that she and the Defendant had no difficulty at all in communicating with each other. Mr Browne pointed out that at page 42 of the Additional Bundle the Defendant had described himself as a non-practising Muslim and Mrs Q said that he had not told her that. Mr Browne asked about the string vest and Mrs Q said that she didn’t criticise what the Defendant was wearing; she said: “I was always nice to him and would never say anything that would hurt him.” The conversation about the Gucci belt happened in the office area and she didn’t remember it being in the coffee area. Mr Browne asked her to demonstrate how she had pointed to it and she indicated using a flat, upturned palm. It was not indecent. She said it was wholly innocuous. She said she had never seen the email from the Defendant about going to a restaurant.

In his evidence in chief Mr Gary Booth confirmed the truth of his Affidavit made on 26 March 2025 for the purposes of these proceedings (page 83 of the Core Bundle), his witness statement for the ET at page 118 of the Core Bundle and he also confirmed that the evidence he gave in the ET was true. He identified the exhibit to his Affidavit at page 1951 of the Additional Bundle. At page 1381 of the Additional Bundle, he identified the transcript of a meeting between himself, the Defendant and Yogita Mehta on 13 November. He agreed that the Defendant had said that he loved what he was doing and was happy at the bank.

Mr Booth was employed at the Claimant at the relevant time as Deputy Operations Manager, reporting to Mr Lars Vogelmann, who was Head of operations in the Client Lifecycle Management (“CLM”) team. Mr Booth was the first point of contact for “people issues” within the team, and in this capacity became involved with the Defendant. When such issues arose, he would assess the issues and see if he could help. Team leaders within CLM such as Yogita Mehta would come to him if they had any people issues and he would work with them and the individuals involved, if appropriate, to seek a resolution. Issues could then be escalated to Mr Vogelmann and/or HR if necessary.

His evidence in relation the Contempt Allegations 10 and 11 (see paragraph 15 above) was as follows:

“20.

The Defendant alleged in the ET Proceedings that on 14 November 2019 and 18 November 2019, a KYC Reviewer, Omolola Ogunfowora, known as Lola, had yelled "this boy" at him as in the open plan office. I do not have direct knowledge of this incident because I was not present at the relevant time, however my knowledge comes from discussions with Yogita (who had witnessed interactions between Lola and the Defendant) and Lola's email complaint about it at the material time, as I have set out below. For the reasons I set out below, I do not believe this allegation made by the Defendant to be true. As I explain further below at paragraphs 21 to 30, I understand that it was the Defendant who referred to Lola as "this girl", rather than Lola referring to him as "this boy".

21.

I first became aware of an issue between Lola and the Defendant on either 18 or early on 19 November. I cannot recall exactly when Yogita first told me about it.

22.

Lola had sent Yogita an email at 10:03 on 19 November 2019, raising a formal complaint against the Defendant about an incident the previous day. She was upset by an incident on 18 November 2019 where she reported that the Defendant had said to her, "I don't want this girl to mark my cases, I don't want this girl touching my mouse, tell this girl not to talk to me".

23.

Yogita forwarded this on to Lars at 10:21 that day, and then again to Lars with me copied at 16:31 that day. Lars and I had already been in discussions with Yogita about another issue involving the Defendant and Artur Kowalik … so Yogita forwarded this complaint on given that context as it appeared to align with other issues involving the Defendant (namely that he had difficulty in accepting feedback).

24.

At 13:37 on 19 November 2019, Yogita emailed a timeline to Lars and me with a summary of all the incidents that the Defendant had been involved in.

25.

In her complaint to Yogita, Lola complained about the way that the Defendant was continuing to respond to feedback. She was upset by an incident on 18 November 2019 where she reported that the Defendant had said to her, "I don't want this girl to mark my cases, I don't want this girl touching my mouse, tell this girl not to talk to me". Yogita had witnessed that incident and corroborated what Lola said, noting in her summary email on 19 November that the Defendant had been "very unprofessional".

26.

Lola said in her complaint that in her experience the Defendant had real difficulty accepting feedback and would take it personally and disagree with the Reviewer. … my interactions with the Defendant in relation to an issue between him and Artur Kowalik, suggested to me that there was a pattern of behaviour where the Defendant was not receptive to feedback. As I have set out below … this was a fundamental problem for someone in the KYC Analyst role, as taking on board feedback was integral to the role.

27.

In her notes, Yogita told me and Lars that she had had a meeting with the Defendant on 19 November 2019 to discuss Lola's complaint and the Defendant's working relationship with her. Yogita noted that the Defendant had said to her in that meeting that he wanted to escalate the issue with Lola to HR and "blow it up". He also told Yogita that he was ready to leave that day if he had to.

28.

The "blow it up" comment was concerning to me as it suggested that the Defendant was committed to being disruptive and was going to continue to create problems for no reason.

29.

In the course of the ET Proceedings, I was shown a copy of an email that the Defendant sent Yogita on 20 November 2019 at 15.34pm, in which he stated that Lola had grabbed his mouse and raised her voice. The Defendant did not complain that Lola had called him "this boy" in this email. I was not sent this email at the time in 2019 but, in any event, by the time the Defendant sent that email to Yogita, Lars and I had already made the decision to dismiss the Defendant and he was dismissed in a meeting the next day.

30.

Having seen both Lola's complaint and spoken to Yogita about the incident at the time, I was satisfied that it was the Defendant who referred to Lola as "this girl". This was supported by Lola's complaint, which was clear and raised immediately the morning after the incident, and Yogita's confirmation that Lola's complaint was accurate and that the Defendant had been "unprofessional". At this time, I had known Yogita for 11 years and I know her to be a person of integrity and a very competent and diligent manager. Yogita is a very authentic and direct person: if she told me something I had absolute confidence in its accuracy and truth. If the comment had been made, I am confident that Yogita, based on my long experience of working with her, would have mentioned it.

31.

At no time during his employment did the Defendant raise with me that Lola had called him "this boy", not even following his dismissal. Further, he did not raise it at the time it was alleged to have happened, in the email he sent to Yogita on 20 November 2019 (see above, paragraph 29) Further, I understand based on my knowledge of events at the time and my knowledge of the ET Proceedings that no such complaint was raised at all by the Defendant until several months into the ET Proceedings in further claim documents, after the Defendant would have seen references to him referring to Lola as "this girl" in Commerzbank's defence to the two tribunal claims.”

In relation to this last point made by Mr Booth, the court notes that it is correct that the Defendant first raised the allegation that Ms Ogunfowora had referred to him as “this boy” in response to references in Claimant’s defence to the ET proceedings to him having referred to Ms Ogunfowora as “this girl”.

In his Affidavit, Mr Booth also gave evidence in relation to Contempt Allegations 29 and 30, the allegations that the Defendant fabricated entries in his work diary in order to bolster his claim I the ET (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above). He stated:

“I understand that very late in the ET Proceedings the Defendant disclosed a notebook which he claims was his work diary.

58.

The Defendant has also made notes in that work diary suggesting that he raised concerns with me in a meeting on 19 November 2019 about (amongst other things not relevant to these proceedings) being Q's "sexual behaviour" and about misconduct by Lola. This is not true: the Claimant raised no such concerns with me on 19 November 2019 or at all (except after his dismissal on 21 November 2019.

59.

I did not meet or speak with the Defendant on 19 November 2019, as can be seen from my Outlook calendar for that day. Yogita informed me and Lars at 13:37 on 19 November that the Defendant had gone home sick at lunchtime that day. In the course of the ET Proceedings I saw the email that the Defendant sent to Yogita at 12:22 on 19 November telling her he had to go home. These entries in the work diary were not true or accurate, I believe they were fabricated by the Defendant during the ET Proceedings in order to support his claims.

60.

I have that belief for two reasons. Firstly, a number of different pens appear to have been used across the relevant entries. The pen the Defendant has used to add in the note regarding the alleged meeting with me on 19 November 2019 has been added in what appears to be a different pen (because the ink is a different colour) to the surrounding entries.

Second, this note also appears in an illogical order:

a)

At the top of [the page] is a note of a team meeting dated 18 November 2019. I did not regularly attend these team meetings and cannot recall if I attended a team meeting on 18 November 2019.

b)

There is then on that page a note which reads "meeting with Gary postponed for tomorrow 19.11.19". That note cannot be an accurate note, however, because there was no agreement to postpone any meeting with the Defendant to 19 November 2019. As set out above I did not meet with or speak with the Defendant on that date.

c)

Lars and I met with the Defendant on 18 November 2019 during which meeting we discussed the Defendant's request to move teams. This meeting also initially included Yogita but the Defendant asked for her to leave from the meeting. This was the meeting Yogita refers to in her notes in the email at 13:37 on 19 November 2019. It was agreed that he could move to the FI team, subject to his conduct improving and the required systems access being granted (as FI was a different team, the Defendant would not have had access to their systems). The Defendant's notes of that meeting are recorded at the top of [the page].

d)

However, between the notes of those two meetings on 18 November are alleged notes dated 19 November 2019. These are out of chronological order.

…

62.

For these reasons, I believe these entries are false entries. I strongly suspect that these entries were created during the course of the ET Proceedings in an effort to bolster his false claims.

Mr Booth was cross-examined by Ms Horlick KC on behalf of the Defendant. He confirmed that he was not employed in the Human Resources Department. He confirmed that the Claimant had a whistle blowing policy and that whistle blowers are protected. He assumed there would be a specific person to whom a whistle blower could report. He assumed that the Human Resources Department would be able to advise on the process for a whistle blower.

Ms Horlick asked if he remembered an Anne-Marie Burgess in the Human Resources Department and he said that he did not: their primary contact in HR was Hope Jackson.

Mr Booth agreed that he was tasked to deal with a problem between the Defendant and another employee called Artur Kowalik. He said: “I had separate meetings with each of them. There were several emails. Artur sent me an email with his recollection of events and, after the meeting, his concerns. I didn’t keep notes beyond what was contained in the emails. All emails about the Defendant have been disclosed.” Ms Horlick asked if it is good practice to take contemporaneous notes and he answered it may be. She asked if it was good practice to share such notes with the participants and he replied: “Not entirely in this case.” He said that there are records of what was agreed and what was expected. Artur provided his statement the same day but the Defendant did not. He said: “I believe there is email traffic clearly stating my expectations, namely that they should keep a professional distance and relationship. This was certainly sent to the Defendant.”

Ms Horlick asked about the transcript of the meeting of 13 November at page 1374 of the Additional Bundle and he agreed that the dialogue was mainly between him and the Defendant. She put that the Defendant had expressed his concerns and he agreed that was true, at some level. He confirmed the accuracy of the transcript of the meeting where the Defendant is recorded as saying:

“Why I'm saying this is because Artur was threatening me; like he called me into a room and it was like his body language and everything -- before that, I even called him to like, "Don't use that word against me". I said that I was calm and knew that whatever we do, I felt the volatility for somebody that will be so I actually helped to note a job, but I think what gave him the audacity was before that, what Yogita said to him and even though this is kind of like in this March between what Lars said to me and what he said, "He's AVP". I'm AVP, right; there's no seniority because by the same token I could say, "Oh, I'm senior to Divya and I talk to her anyhow."

Ms Horlick referred Mr Booth a further part of the transcript as follows:

Mr Booth: “… I'm quite happy for you to summarise to me, like Artur has summarised to me, a synopsis of your relationship today and where you feel this leaves you. What I'm not inclined to do at this stage is support a move out of team somewhere else, and I would much rather this is managed in a professional way with two adults. If it becomes apparent that that simply cannot be the case, then I will look at other options I have available to me.”

The Defendant: “Gary, thanks for that. I mean I think I would like to go for the last option because like I said earlier, this is not the first time a reviewer has been making inappropriate comments and I've sucked it all up for six, seven months.

Mr Booth agreed that he made suggestions as to how the Defendant and Artur should work together. He agreed that he was aware that the Defendant wanted to move to a different team.

Ms Horlick put to Mr Booth that there had been a meeting on 19 November in the morning when the Defendant had asked to speak to him again. Mr Booth was adamant that the meeting did not happen. Accordingly he denied everything that was put to him about what had been said in such a meeting on the basis that the meeting didn’t take place. Ms Horlick put that the Defendant had spoken to Mr Booth about his concerns, that he’d been threatened by Artur and that he wanted to move teams. Mr Booth said that it had previously been agreed that the Defendant would move to the Financial Institutions Team, this being on the basis that the Defendant’s behaviour would change. However the Defendant had gone back on his original agreement that he would work professionally which they had shaken hands on. Ms Horlick suggested that the Defendant still wanted the Artur matter investigated and Mr Booth denied that the Defendant had raised that with him. Ms Horlick also put that the Defendant had raised his concerns about other employees including Lola and Mrs Q and Mr Booth said that this was not raised with him until after the Defendant’s dismissal. Mrs Q had never been mentioned to him.

Mr Booth agreed that the Claimant had dismissed the Defendant on 21 November 2019 and that he had been part of the Claimant’s team. Ms Horlick put that the Defendant said at the meeting when he was dismissed: “I told you about these problems” and Mr Booth agreed that he had said that after he’d been handed his Termination Papers and after Mr Booth had had a conversation with Hope Jackson. The Defendant had said this in the presence of Hope Jackson and Lars.

In re-examination Mr Browne KC took Mr Booth to some of the email traffic at pages 627, 574, 572 and 626 and 628 of the Additional Bundle. Mr Booth said that he had asked both Artur Kowalik and the Defendant to provide an account of the incident between them, each from his own point of view. Artur had done so but the Defendant had not. Mr Booth said he wanted the Defendant’s account but never received it. At 626-628 are the emails on 18 November. Mr Booth said that the Defendant never referenced Lola or Mrs Q to him. The upshot had been that the Defendant would be moved to the FI team but this was not a quick fix as it required the Defendant to learn about different systems and undergo training. It was agreed at the meeting at 16:00 on 18 November which took place with the Defendant and Lars that the Defendant would move to the FI team.

The Defendant gave evidence on his own behalf, having been clearly informed of his right to remain silent and his right against self-incrimination. At the start of his evidence, the Defendant referred to his Affidavit of 14 May 2025 and confirmed that it was true. I had read this Affidavit immediately before the Defendant started his evidence. The Defendant said that his memory of events in 2019 is not very good now and he referred to paragraph 12 of his Affidavit where he said:

“This case has really affected my mental health and negatively impacted my life. Friends have distanced themselves from me, since they assume the worst when they hear that I have a case against a bank as they assume that I have stolen money. I had a very bad state of mind after my dismissal, which caused pain to my children as I would be depressed and upset at home and it caused arguments and I have since split from my wife. This case has been so traumatic for me and I have struggled to continue, but wanted to push through and clear my name.”

The Defendant said that he split up from his wife four years ago and was now living in “multiple occupation housing” occupying one room and sharing cooking facilities. He said that after his dismissal, he was distraught and depressed and the situation is not improved now: he is on anti-depressant medication and has other medical issues.

The Defendant said he was born and brought up in Nigeria and came to the United Kingdom when under 30 years of age. His language, Yoruba, is very direct and very blunt: they don’t have the word “nuance”. He said he still thinks in Yoruba and it means that his English is affected. He said he has worked in the field of KYC for a number of years. He was pleased to get the job with the Claimant: when he started there his son was three years old and his daughter was a baby. The family were living in Gravesend and he would come into the office five days a week working from 9am. He was initially on probation and there were certain conditions which included completing a number of cases and completing the mandatory training. He referred to a floor plan exhibited to his Affidavit and described where he sat and the other main geographical points. When he started working at the Claimant he didn’t know anybody else working there. He said that Mrs Q worked at point 1 on the plan which was where he worked as did Yogita, whilst Lola worked at point 6. He couldn’t recollect where Gary Booth worked. Private meetings could take place in the meeting rooms. Team meetings usually took place in the basement.

The Defendant said that when he started, he was sitting close to Mrs Q, with one person between them. He was moved on one occasion. In his team there were seven or eight Analysts and two or three reviewers. He said he didn’t have lots of non-work conversations because he just wanted to get on with the job. He said he didn’t agree that he was excessively friendly with Mrs Q, saying it was no more than was professional. He couldn’t remember asking her to play table soccer or offering her chewing gum: he played table-football with Daren. He said he did not invite Mrs Q to the pub. Ms Horlick asked if he discussed fashion with Mrs Q and he said: “no” (laughing). He said he always wore a suit and tie except on Fridays when he wore jeans and a jumper.

Ms Horlick took the Defendant to Grounds 2-6 and asked what he said about the Claimant’s suggestion that his complaint in respect of Mrs Q was baseless and untrue. He said he remembered that Q commented on what he was wearing under his suit which was a T-shirt similar to the one he was wearing in court. He agreed he wore a vest that looks like a net. Mrs Q said to him: “I can see your skin. I can see your nipples”. He said he would wear a very light blue shirt and that her comments made him feel very uncomfortable. She was in a position of power because what she did could affect his job: he was on probation except for the last two weeks of his employment. No one else mentioned his net vest. Ms Horlick asked when she had said this and he said he couldn’t remember but it was more like summer than autumn. She mentioned it more than once. The incident with the Gucci belt happened in the break-out area. He said he was trying to get a drink. The machine was dispensing the drink. It was a Friday and he was wearing a Gucci belt with his jeans. Q came in through the entrance to his left, he turned to her and she reached for his belt as if she wanted to look at it or his crotch area. He said she was trying to touch it and he pushed her hand away. He couldn’t recall what was said but felt very uncomfortable. He couldn’t recall talking to her about it. This may have been in October.

The Defendant said that he thought the person sitting next to him told him that Mrs Q’s mother had died. He said he couldn’t remember when he found out and whether it was before or after Mrs Q got back. He agreed he offered her his condolences.

The Defendant referred to paragraph 20 of his Affidavit where he referred to Mrs Q telling him that she liked him or fancied him, words that he interpreted as of a sexual nature. He said this was as he was going down to the basement in the lift lobby area. It was before Mrs Q left for her home country and before the Gucci belt incident. He said he felt very uncomfortable about her making that comment and that he didn’t know what to do and so decided to move on with it. He said they both got in the lift and she got out at the ground floor. He couldn’t recall what was said in the lift. He said he spoke to his wife about it but didn’t want to report it as he didn’t want to lose his job and, as a man, not be believed by Yogita.

The Defendant referred to paragraph 24 of his Affidavit in which he addressed the allegation that he had fabricated a tale about bringing a meal into work for his birthday and where he explained that while it was not on his actual birthday it was for the occasion of his birthday. He said he brought the dish into work because this had been a tradition at his previous work and everyone had tasted the dish. He took it to the staff cafeteria, put it on a pedestal and sent round an email about it. Mrs Q wasn’t there.

In her Affidavit and evidence, Mrs Q had referred to a passage in the Defendant’s witness statement where he had said that, Mrs Q having been absent when he brought the dish into work, she had constantly pestered him to try the Nigerian dish as a result of which he had invited the whole team to a Thai restaurant. Mrs Q had denied that this happened saying that she did not recall the Defendant ever bringing in a Nigerian dish of jollof rice, nor had he invited the whole team to lunch. She had said there was an occasion when the Defendant invited himself to a lunch which she had arranged with another colleague, Daren, shortly before she left the Claimant in November 2019. In response, the Defendant referred to his credit card statement (page 9 of the exhibit to his Affidavit) which showed payments of £6.95 and £1.50 to Banh Mi Bay on 14^th August which is the restaurant where he would buy his lunch. He said it was a restaurant 10 minutes’ walk from the office serving spicy food from East Asia which he discovered and recommended to the team. He said this was where he went for lunch with Mrs Q and Daren. Ms Horlick asked why he had gone to lunch with Mrs Q when she had made him feel uncomfortable and he said this was because he wanted to keep his job and because of the dynamics at work.

Ms Horlick took the Defendant to page 1145 of the Additional Bundle for the hearing which is the start of an A4 project book. The Defendant said that this is his work diary which he kept in order keep tabs on his memory in relation to what he has been doing and to whom he’s been talking. It was made for his own benefit. Ms Horlick referred to the fact that at times it is in different coloured ink and he said that he might use a different colour to denote something different. He said that there is nothing significant in the use of different pens. Ms Horlick referred to page 1344 where the Defendant had recorded: “Gary promised to investigate with Artur’s conduct” and asked what had happened with Artur. The Defendant said he was reporting to Ms Mehta an incident when Artur Kowalik had called him into a room and said: “I’m going to crush you” and that was what was discussed on 12^th November. There were meetings to discuss this. He said he didn’t want to stay in the same team as Artur because of what Artur had said, saying “I just wanted to move away”. The Defendant said that when Artur said this, he was very agitated. He referred to an email he sent to Artur on 12 November 2019 (page 690 of the additional bundle) in which he had referred to a meeting on 11 October 2019 when Artur had told him that “all jokes with you need to stop” and Artur had said that he could have “crushed me, but you wanted to warn me first”. The Defendant had acknowledged in the email that he had apologised: in evidence he said he felt coerced to apologise in the interests of team spirit. The email concluded: “My concern is this; with the meeting and subsequent pattern of conduct and attitude, could you please advise how to conduct a working relationship with you going forward?” The Defendant explained that he had waited a month before sending the email because he had still been on probation in October and didn’t want to jeopardise his job. He said there were meetings with Gary Booth in mid-November about Artur. He said in the email that he wanted to take the option of moving teams.

Ms Horlick took the Defendant to his email of 14 November 2019 where he had said: “As per your request, I shall require some time to put the piece (report) together owing to workflow. I would be glad if I could have Artur’s response read out in the meeting.” The Defendant said that, at the meeting with Gary Booth and Yogita on 13^th November, he was asked to write a report about his relationship with Artur. He said he understood the report would not go to HR: he wanted clarity and understood he would be having a meeting with Gary Booth at 16:00 hours. He said he had a meeting with Gary Booth, Lars and Yogita at about noon. He asked Lars to exclude Yogita. Then quite a lot of things were discussed. Gary was trying to convince Lars that what the Defendant was saying was untrue. Lars was snapping his fingers. Gary said he would be speaking to the Defendant later and the Defendant thought he would be moving teams. There was no meeting at 16:00 hours with Gary Booth. The Defendant said he thought they’d be having a meeting on 19 November.

Ms Horlick took the Defendant to page 1343 of the diary where there is an entry: “Meeting with Gary postponed for tomorrow – 19.11.2019” and the Defendant said he would have made that entry on 18 November. Below this, there is a note of a meeting with Yogita about Lola dated 19 November 2019 but the Defendant said he would have made that entry on the evening of 18 November after a discussion with his wife. He said that the points there are matters that he wanted to be discussed. One of the bullet points reads: “Yogita to advise how misconducts were dealt with her HR advice → Anne-Marie”. The Defendant explained that he had spoken to Anne-Marie several times before 18 November to say it was a toxic environment and to report misconduct and his relationship with Lola. Ms Horlick then asked about 19 November and the Defendant said he had a meeting with Yogita and they discussed the incident with Lola. He said: “after the meeting, she was very unhappy: I believe she went to Lola’s desk. I did have brief contact with Gary Booth – in the same area as the meeting with Yogita.” At page 1344 there is a note:

“Meeting with Gary 19.11.2019

sexual behaviour

Waseem Mohammed conducts

Lola’s conduct

→ Gary promised to investigate with Artur’s conduct.”

The Defendant said he believed he made this note on 19 November. He said: “I did meet with Gary Booth on 19 November. I’d reach the point of no return in respect of escalation. We talked about quite a lot of things including my previous employment. I did report to him about Mrs Q.”

Next, Ms Horlick took the Defendant to those parts of his Affidavit where he dealt with the issues involving Lola Ogunfowora and grounds 10, 11 and 31. At paragraph 34 the Defendant had said:

“34.

It is important for the Judge to know that in Nigeria it is considered inappropriate for people of the opposite sex to physically touch especially without consent, and Lola would have known this since she is also from Nigeria. Physically touching others of the opposite sex is inappropriate in my culture, and 1 think in some other cultures as well. During the incident at Grounds 10, 11 and 31, Lola was angry at me and grabbed my computer mouse whilst my hand was still on it. This was incredibly disrespectful and I believed that she intended extra disrespect, since she knew how inappropriate this physical touch was.”

The Defendant said that it is like a taboo to touch someone to whom you are not married: it is just not done and Lola would certainly have known that. He referred also to what he had said in his Affidavit about Lola making comments which put men down and said it was part of a pattern of making demeaning comments about men which he, the Defendant, found intimidating. She had also made comments putting the Defendant down.

Ms Horlick asked about the events of 18 November 2019 and the Defendant said that this incident was a continuation of what happened on 14 November. It concerned a case of his that Lola was reviewing. On 14 November there had been email discussion about it. Within five minutes Lola came over and spoke to Yogita referring to the Defendant as “this boy”. Then on 18 November the Defendant said he was sat at his desk and Lola came from is left unsaid “Yogita, this boy doesn’t understand the procedure.” He said:

“She suddenly lunged and put her hand on mine which was on my mouse, saying “give me the mouse”. It was totally unexpected. I felt it was a complete violation of my dignity, it was dehumanising. I admit I then said “this girl”. I feel it was a reaction to what she had done. I expected HR to treat me as equal to her referring to me as “this boy”. I agree what I said was rude. Lola had to be physically restrained and walked back. I’d never got up from my desk. I couldn’t sleep or do the job, I felt it was the last straw. I told my wife what had happened when I got home.”

In cross-examination by Mr Browne KC, the Defendant confirmed that his statement made for the ET was true and that the evidence he gave on oath before the ET was true. He also confirmed that the contents of his Affidavit were true. Mr Browne asked him about his command of English and he said that although his written English is good there could be times when he had difficulty communicating verbally in English.

Mr Browne then asked about the work diary and the Defendant confirmed that this had been returned to him by the ET, that he had picked it up from them. He said he could no longer find it although he had searched his previous house where his ex-wife and children still live. He agreed he had decided to disclose the diary for the purposes of the ET because it contained important evidence. He said that the notes of the 18^th and 19^th November 2019 were genuine. Mr Browne asked why it had not been disclosed earlier and referred the Defendant to the Order made by Employment Judge Brown on 20 January 2021 in the ET which provided at paragraph 2 “[t]he parties shall provide standard disclosure by copy by 4pm on Thursday, 3 June 2021”. The Defendant said: “I thought it meant disclosure should start from third of June 2021” - an answer which I consider to be disingenuous particularly when the Defendant was represented by counsel when the order of 20 January 2021 was made who can have been expected to have explained to the Defendant his disclosure obligations under the Order. The Defendant agreed that it was only on 9 September 2021 in the preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Brown that he revealed the existence of the diary, prompting Judge Brown to state:

“96.

The Claimant revealed that he has a “work diary” in his possession, which he says contains notes of relevant meetings. He said that he had not yet been able to make copies of it for disclosure. The Respondents said that it was too late for the Claimant to disclose it now.

97.

I had not seen the diary and did not know what relevant evidence it might contain. I was reluctant to prevent the Claimant from disclosing and relying on it. The Respondents will still be able to argue that the diary was not contemporaneous and is not a reliable objective record of events.

98.

Nevertheless, it was outrageous that the Claimant had withheld this potentially relevant evidence for so long, when it has been in his possession throughout the proceedings. I ordered that he disclose the work diary to the Respondents by 5pm on 10 September 2021.”

Mr Browne then referred to the allegations that the Defendant had made against Mrs Q and suggested that there was no middle ground arising out of misunderstanding or misinterpretation: either the events happened or they didn’t and the Defendant agreed that there was no scope for confusion or ambiguity as to whether Mrs Q had tried to grab his crotch, nor as to whether there was a meeting on 19 November 2019 with Mr Booth nor as to whether the diary entries were genuine. The Defendant agreed that if the allegations that he made against Mrs Q were untrue and the events he described did not happen then that would be extremely serious and constitute false evidence.

Mr Browne questioned the Defendant about the covert recordings he had made of meetings on five occasions namely 12 November 2019 (twice), 13 November 2019, 18 November 2019 and 21 November 2019. Mr Browne suggested that this was improper by reference to the employment Handbook which the Defendant was given by the Commerzbank when he joined the bank where it stated

“54.3

Taping conversations by employees is prohibited unless all parties have prior notice of the conversation will be monitored or taped and have given consent. Covert/secret taping of any conversation or meeting occurring at the workplace or conversations or meetings off-site that deal with workplace matters of official concern are prohibited.”

The Defendant disagreed asserting that he made the covert recordings because of what was happening. He agreed that the recording of the meeting on 18 November was disclosed at the ET hearing. There was no recording of his meeting with Yogita Mehta on 19 November 2019. He disagreed with the suggestion that he had behaved in an underhand and devious way in making covert recordings of meetings. Mr Browne also referred the Defendant to other parts of the employee handbook dealing with the Claimant’s harassment policy, whistleblowing policy and disciplinary and grievance procedure. The Defendant confirmed that in the meeting of 13 November 2019, he had said that he was happy at the bank stating: “I love what I’m doing. I’m happy here, so why am I going to stay at home because I’m not well …” He confirmed this was true and that he loved being at the bank, evidence which I found surprising if the Defendant’s claims before the ET were true and genuine.

Mr Browne then referred to the issues surrounding Lola Ogunfowora. The Defendant said that he first raised a complaint about Lola when he spoke to his line manager, Ms Mehta, on 19 November 2019. Mr Browne referred to the Defendant’s email to Ms Mehta of 20 November 2019 (page 706 of the Additional Bundle) where he said:

“Hello Yogita.

Please find below is a re-escalation to Advisory and a reconfirmation from Advisory regarding my position on the reason why Lola Ogunfowara (“Hereinafter, Lola) had the audacity to come to my desk and grabbed my mouse. raised her voice. This is not an isolated incident as | have other instances of such misconduct from Lola.”

The Defendant agreed that there was nothing in this email about Lola referring to him as “this boy”. The Defendant said that he had used the expression “misconduct” and didn’t go into specifics and that this was what he was referring to when he referred to “other instances of such misconduct”. The Defendant agreed that he had not referred to the “this boy” allegation in the first and second versions of his Particulars of Claim in the ET. Mr Browne took the Defendant to the Claimant’s Grounds of Resistance dated February 2020 where the bank had set out its case and in particular at paragraph 23.1, which read:

“23.

However, an incident involving the Claimant took place on 18 November 2019 and which resulted in two further complaints regarding the Claimant’s conduct and behaviour:

23.1.

a formal complaint from Ms Ogunfowora on 19 November 2019 – Ms Ogunfowora had marked three of the Claimant’s cases and on each occasion he had taken the feedback personally, reads only to respond (instead of to understand the points raised), was defensive, not professional and, on 18 November 2019 said the following to Ms Ogunfowora “I don’t want this girl to mark my cases, I don’t want this girl touching my mouse, tell this girl not to talk to me” (“18 November Incident”) and which Ms Ogunfowora considered “…rude and offensive language within an office environment”. The 18 November incident was witnessed by the Fifth Respondent who also believed the Claimant was very unprofessional;”

Mr Browne put to the Defendant that it was only in response to the Claimant’s case that, in June 2020, he came back with the “this boy” allegation in an attempt falsely to turn the tables on the Claimant. The Defendant disagreed. Mr Browne suggested that the Defendant had twisted it round and used what he had said by imputing similar words to Ms Ogunfowora. The Defendant disagreed and explained that the reason was that he had changed his solicitor. Mr Browne asked why it had taken six months for him to raise this and he replied: “I couldn’t have raised anything after putting in my Particulars of Claim.”

Mr Browne asked about the Defendant’s complaint about what Ms Ogunfowora did and suggested that the Defendant’s evidence in chief, namely that she had put her hand on his whilst he was touching his mouse, was not the way he had described it before. Thus, previously, the Defendant had said (in his Further and Better Particulars):

“ii)

On 18 November 2019 Lola Ogunfowora came with the Fifth Respondent to the Claimant at his desk (in an open office) and said in a demeaning way (in an open office) “This boy does not know the KYC procedure; I don’t think this boy knows what he is doing”. Lola then forcefully grabbed the Claimant’s keyboard’s mouse.”

By contrast, in his witness statement of 4 October 2021, the Defendant had described the incident as follows:

“125.

Without any warning Lola Ogunfowora stated to R5 that: ‘”I don’t think this boy understands the KYC procedure” and lunged to forcefully grab my keyboard mouse from my right hand. R5 stood by and watched, she shrugged as if “Why not?” I turned to R5 and asked her “Would it be acceptable for me to call Lola a ‘girl’ in the office?” referring to the fact that she had just called me ‘boy’. This was the second occasion she had done it and it was patronising and disrespectful.”

Mr Browne suggested that the Defendant had never previously described the incident as he did in his evidence in chief (see paragraph 60 above) and asked why he had never previously described what Lola did as taboo – he replied, “no reason”.

Mr Browne referred the Defendant to paragraph 4 of his witness statement of 4 October 2021 where he stated (referring to Yogita Mehta as “R5”):

“4.

For ease of reference, the following meetings were held whilst I was employed at R1 which are relevant to the issues under consideration:

i.

End of May 2019- with R5 where I reported Lola Ogunfowora conduct with Mr. Piotr Wtorkiewicz

ii.

July 2019- with R5 where I first reported Lola Ogunfowora public inappropriate (sexist) comments about me to R5. Not scheduled.

iii.

6th August 2019 with R5 per accreditation and reporting Mr Muhammed Bhatti / Waseem . Unscheduled

iv.

19th September 2019 with R5 reporting Lola Ogunfowora on a case review. Called by R5

v.

11 October 2019 – with Artur Kowalik where he threatened to crush me. Not scheduled. Called by Artur Kowalik.”

The Defendant agreed that he had thus reported a number of co-employees during his probationary period and had had no concerns about raising issues before the end of his probationary period. Mr Browne suggested that this showed it was untrue that fear of reprisals prevented him from reporting the matters involving Mrs Q. The Defendant disagreed stating that the issues with Mrs Q were different. He insisted they were not false allegations, maintaining that the events did happen. He said his relationship with Mrs Q was professional rather than friendly and what he had written on her leaving card carried no positive or negative meaning but was neutral. Mr Browne referred the Defendant to paragraph 38 of the Particulars of Claim in the ET where the Defendant had stated that Mrs Q’s conduct “had the purpose or effect of … violating the Claimant’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment for the Claimant” and suggested the Defendant would not have signed Mrs Q’s leaving card as he did had he really felt that way and that the Defendant signed the card because in fact none of the allegations against Mrs Q had happened. The Defendant disagreed. He denied asking Daren if he knew how old Mrs Q was, saying “it was none of my business.”

Mr Browne then took the Defendant through the allegations he had made against Mrs Q pointing to various differences in the different accounts and suggested that the Defendant had twisted an innocuous event, namely Mrs Q commenting on his Gucci belt, into an elaborate lie to his disadvantage. Mr Browne referred to the Defendant’s email sent on 21 November 2019 after he had been dismissed in which he stated “as per the sexual assault/harassment from Q. This is a request on the bank to secure the CCTV in the coffee area exactly 2 months ago.” Mr Browne pointed out that “exactly 2 months ago” would have been 21 September 2019 and that the Defendant had given three different accounts of the date of the alleged sexual assault by Mrs Q. The Defendant insisted that it happened on the Friday in the third week of October. He said: “the central point is that the allegation has remained the same.” In relation to the allegation that Mrs Q had said “I can see your nipples” Mr Browne pointed out that the Defendant had failed to pay in accordance with a deposit order made by Employment Judge Brown in relation to this allegation and suggested that the Defendant had failed to pay because it was false and he knew there was a risk on costs. The Defendant responded that he didn’t pay the deposit order (£10) because he was on benefits and was having to pay for direct access Counsel. He denied that the allegation was plainly false.

Mr Browne put to the Defendant that he had told the ET that he didn’t report Mrs Q because he felt sorry for her because her mother had died, but the dates did not stack up. Thus, Mrs Q’s mother died at the end of August 2019, the Defendant found out in November 2019 (see paragraph 31 of the Defendant’s witness statement) so that there was a considerable period after the alleged conduct of Mrs Q when the Defendant failed to report the matter and sympathy for Mrs Q could not have been the reason. The Defendant responded: “I didn’t report Mrs Q before November 2019 because I want to keep my job.” He denied that he didn’t report Mrs Q because the events had not happened. Mr Browne put that the first time he actually reported anything to do with Mrs Q was on the 21 November 2019 and the Defendant disagreed saying that it was when he spoke to Gary Booth on 19 November.

Mr Browne then questioned the Defendant about the suggested meeting with Gary Booth on 19 November 2019 which the Defendant said had been in the morning after he had had a meeting with Yogita Mehta at 10am. He said he had then gone off sick at lunchtime. Mr Browne referred to an email sent by the Defendant to Gary Booth at 12:24 on 20 November 2019 where he said:

“Hello Gary,

Following the meeting with you and Lars on Monday the 18th of November 2019, I have completed a handover to Yogita as per her request yesterday. I am more than happy to go with the conclusion of the meeting, however, I considered it of utmost importance and imperative that the complaint is well presented (documented) to you and Lars.

The report is a work-in-progress after which I shall forward this to you and Lars.”

Mr Browne asked why, in this email, the Defendant had made no reference to his meeting with Gary Booth the previous day if it had taken place, or to Mrs Q’s sexual harassment. He also asked why, in his request for further disclosure in the ET, he had not asked for a record of the meeting with Mr Booth on 19 November. The Defendant replied that no record had been taken because it was an informal meeting. Mr Browne referred to the diary entries and the note about speaking to Anne-Marie Burgess as showing that the note headed “meeting with Yogita about Lola O 19.11.19” must have been made on 19 November 2019 as that was the day that the Defendant spoke to Ms Burgess. Mr Browne also challenged the Defendant’s evidence that Lars Vogelman had been begging him not to take the matter to HR.

Mr Browne then took the Defendant to his Affidavit made for the purposes of the contempt proceedings on 14 May 2025 and suggested that what the Defendant was now saying represented a fundamental change from his position in the ET. Thus, before the ET he had said that Mrs Q’s intentions were clear whilst now he was saying that he didn’t know what her intention was. At paragraph 20 of his Affidavit, he had said that Mrs Q’s words made him feel uncomfortable. Mr Browne suggested this was very different to what he had said in the ET namely that he had felt degraded, dehumanised and humiliated. The Defendant replied that this was covered by the word “uncomfortable”. Mr Browne also put to the Defendant that in his Affidavit he had said “I cannot recall if she said “I like you” or “I fancy you” or something which he interpreted as meaning the same thing and suggested that this was a desperate attempt to row back from what the Defendant had said in the Tribunal. The Defendant denied that his position had changed fundamentally and said that he was trying to be honest in his Affidavit as to how he remembered it now, six years later. He disagreed that the Affidavit represented an attempt to change his position in the face of the committal application. In answer to questions from the court, the Defendant said that he was not resiling from his position that Mrs Q had deliberately failed his work because he had rejected her sexual advances.

In re-examination, the Defendant said that he didn’t think he had told lies in this case but had said what he honestly believed happened. He said he had been very distressed in the meeting on 21 November 2019. In the Further and Better Particulars, in relation to Lola grabbing his mouse, he said he was alleging unwanted physical contact. So far as Mrs Q was concerned, he said it was she that he was referring to when, in his meeting with Yogita Mehta, he had said:

“In fact, there are some individual if I told you what they've done, they would get fired immediately. Immediately. But I look at what this individual is going through in their life. I'm like, 'You know what? I'm going to brush it off.”

Finally, Ms Horlick asked the Defendant if he had ever experienced grief and he described how he had been informed of the brutal death of his brother in 2022 which caused him to break down. He said: “I would never use a family death as a cover.”

For the Claimant, Mr Browne made three preliminary points:

Mr Browne then took the court through each of the Grounds relied on by the Claimant. In relation to Grounds 2-6, relying on the evidence of Mrs Q, Mr Browne submitted that the Defendant manufactured a wholly bogus claim of sexual assault/harassment against Mrs Q the claim which he knew to be bogus but which he nevertheless persisted in to a full hearing before the ET with the intention of obtaining compensation. These allegations had had a very serious adverse effect on Mrs Q’s health. They were then persisted in at the committal hearing. Mr Browne submitted that the Defendant’s description of events had evolved over time in significant ways inconsistent with the events having happened and inconsistent with the Defendant telling the truth. This related to each of the allegations which the Defendant had made in paragraphs 13 and 14 of his Particulars of Claim (see paragraphs 16 and 18 above). Mr Browne was particularly critical of what he described as the Defendant’s attempts in his Affidavit for these proceedings to row back from the stark and serious allegations he had made in the ET.

In relation to grounds 24-26, Mr Browne submitted that the Defendant had wholly falsely asserted that because of his alleged concern for Mrs Q’s vulnerable state arising from the tragic death of her mother, he did not raise sooner his allegations of her alleged sexual assault/harassment of him and he maintained this stance through to the committal hearing despite overwhelming evidence of its falsity. He acknowledged that the Claimant cannot gainsay the Defendant’s evidence that he brought food into the office to celebrate his birthday but the Claimant maintains its case in relation to the Defendant inviting himself to the restaurant for lunch with Mrs Q and Daren. He relied in particular on the chronology which showed that for the entirety of the period over which the Defendant alleged Mrs Q had sexually harassed or assaulted him, he had not in fact been aware of the death of Mrs Q’s mother because he had not been told this until November 2019, on his own account. The suggestion that he had not raised a complaint out of sensitivity for Mrs Q’s feelings was therefore entirely false causing the Defendant to changes account and suggests that he did not report it for fear of losing his job even though he had raised matters concerning other colleagues during his probationary period. There was therefore significance in the fact that, on the Claimant’s case, the first time the Defendant reported the allegations concerning Mrs Q was after he had been dismissed on 21 November 2019. The Defendant’s suggestion that he had reported it at a meeting with Gary Booth on 19 November 2019 was untrue because there had been no such meeting.

In relation to Grounds 29 and 30, Mr Browne submitted that the entries in the Defendant’s work diary were fabricated and that the Defendant had falsely asserted that the entry for the discussion with Yogita Mehta had been made on the evening of 18 November 2019 and represented what he wanted to discuss with Ms Mehta the following day, as opposed to being a note of what had been discussed. Mr Browne analysed the purported entry in the diary and submitted that the entry at the top of page 1344, being a note of the Defendant’s meeting with Lars Vogelman and Gary Booth on 18 November 2019 (when the idea of the Defendant moving teams was discussed), showed that the entry at the foot of page 1343, which the Defendant said had been made on the evening of 18 November 2019, could not genuinely have been made then: the entries were out of chronological order and this demonstrated that those entries in the diary was a fabrication. A further impossibility was the indication in the entry at the bottom of page 1343 dated 18 November 2019 that HR advice had been obtained from Ms Burgess when the Defendant did not speak to Ms Burgess until 19 November 2019. Although the Defendant had covertly recorded other meetings in this period, significantly there was no recording for the meeting with Gary Booth on 19 November 2019, the simple explanation being that there was no such meeting.

In relation to Grounds 10, 11 and 31, the Claimant maintained its case that the Defendant had fabricated this account of events in order to bolster his untruthful claim in the ET. Again, severe doubt is cast on the Defendant’s account by the fact that it was raised for the first time in his Further and Better Particulars, pleaded in response to the Claimant’s pleaded case that Lola Ogunfowora had complained about the Defendant referring to her as “this girl”, Ms Ogunfowora’s complaint having been on 19 November 2019, soon after the Defendant’s second reference to her as “this girl” on 18 November 2019. Mr Browne relied upon the Defendant’s changing account, for example in relation to whether Ms Ogunfowora touched his mouse or his hand and whether he was humiliated by what she said or what she did. Mr Browne submitted that there had been no need for the bank to call Ms Ogunfowora as a witness: the claimant’s case is demonstrated and established by reference to the documentary evidence, by the Defendant’s changes in his position and by his own evidence.

On behalf of the Defendant, Ms Wass KC drew to the court’s attention the general propositions of law in relation to civil contempt as adumbrated by Andrew Baker J in Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799 at paragraphs 82 and 85:

“82.

The following relevant general propositions of law in relation to civil contempts are well-established:

i)

The bringing of a committal application is an appropriate and legitimate means, not only of seeking enforcement of an order or undertaking, but also (or alternatively) of drawing to the court’s attention a serious (rather than purely technical) contempt. Thus a committal application can properly be brought in respect of past (and irremediable) breaches;

ii)

A committal application must be proportionate (by reference to the gravity of the conduct alleged) and brought for legitimate ends. It must not be pursued for improper collateral purpose;

iii)

Breach of an undertaking given to the court will be a contempt: an undertaking to the court represents a solemn commitment to the court and may be enforced by an order for committal. Breach of a court undertaking is always serious, because it undermines the administration of justice;

iv)

The meaning and effect of an undertaking are to be construed strictly, as with an injunction. It is appropriate to have regard to the background available to both parties at the time of the undertaking when construing its terms. There is a need to pay regard to the mischief sought to be prevented by the order or undertaking;

v)

It is generally no defence that the order disobeyed (or the undertaking breached) should not have been made or accepted;

vi)

Orders and undertakings must be complied with even if compliance is burdensome, inconvenient and expensive. If there is any obstacle to compliance, the proper course is to apply to have the order or undertaking set aside or varied;

vii)

In order to establish contempt, it need not be demonstrated that the contemnor intended to breach an order or undertaking and/or believed that the conduct in question constituted a breach. Rather it must be shown that the contemnor deliberately intended to commit the act or omission in question. Motive is irrelevant;

viii)

Contempt proceedings are not intended as a means of securing civil compensation;

ix)

For a breach of order or undertaking to be established, it must be shown that the terms of the order or undertaking are clear and unambiguous; that the respondent had proper notice; and that the breach is clear (by reference to the terms of the order or undertaking).

…

85.

The court should be astute to detect when contempt proceedings are not being pursued for legitimate aims. There is an obvious need to guard carefully against the risk of allowing vindictive litigants to use such proceedings improperly.”

Ms Wass further submitted that there must be more than mere failure to succeed to avoid a situation whereby every unsuccessful litigant whose evidence has not been believed or accepted would be subject to proceedings for contempt. She submitted that in this case what the Claimant has done is to nit-pick details by reference to the Defendant’s failure to do certain things.

Ms Wass observed that the Claimant’s case is put very highly, namely that the Defendant’s case was fabricated in relation to both Mrs Q and Ms Ogunfowora and that there was no truth whatsoever in what the Defendant was alleging. However, in fact, there is and was an evidential foundation for each allegation. For example Mrs Q accepted that there was an occasion when she commented to the Defendant about him wearing a string vest. The difference between them was that she said it happened only once whilst the Defendant said it happened more than once and that he took it to be a sexual comment. She drew to the court’s attention the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, s26 with its definition of harassment where a person (A) harasses another (B) where the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B and she relied in particular upon s.26(4) which provides:

“(4)

In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—

(a)

the perception of B;

(b)

the other circumstances of the case;

(c)

whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.”

Ms Wass submitted that a woman making a comment about a man’s underwear could be perceived as sexual harassment and there was thus room for a grey area in this case.

In relation to the Defendant’s belt, Ms Wass refer to the fact that Mrs Q had accepted that on another, later date she had commented on the Defendant’s belt and gestured towards it. With the background of having commented on his underwear, the same person commenting on the belt and gesturing towards it could have been perceived by the Defendant as some sort of sexual threat. She submitted that these two matters should not be considered in isolation but the court, putting the two matters together, should ask whether they could have been perceived in the way that the Defendant describes. In the light of the above she asked, rhetorically: can the court be sure that the claim was entirely fabricated? She submitted that the Defendant may have believed, or come to believe, that there was more than one incident. This case is to be contrasted with cases where there is absolutely no foundation for the allegations.

Ms Wass referred to the claim by the Claimant that the Defendant had invented an excuse as to why he didn’t complain about Mrs Q. The Defendant said that he found out about Mrs Q’s bereavement in November 2019. However, it was Mrs Q’s evidence that the Defendant learned of the bereavement significantly earlier. Thus, at paragraph 28 of her Affidavit she stated:

“ “My mother died unexpectedly in a car accident at the end of August 2019. I returned to Russia and was on leave for 3 weeks from 2nd September until 23rd September. Once I had returned, the Defendant came to my desk on several occasions and offered his condolences.”

Thus, there was a difference in recollection and on Mrs Q’s evidence, bereavement could in fact have been a reason for the Defendant not complaining. This showed that the Defendant’s memory may be imperfect in ways which do not benefit him, something for the court to bear in mind in considering these allegations and the Claimant’s reliance upon timing.

Ms Wass referred to the Claimant’s argument that if the Defendant’s case was true, he would never have gone out to lunch with Mrs Q and Daren. In this context, she submitted that it is necessary for the court to be cautious: thus, in criminal cases, juries are directed that the victims of sexual misconduct do not always behave the same way and that they should beware of stereotypes. That equally applies here. Ms Wass submitted that, in relation to the allegations concerning Mrs Q, importance lies in the Defendant’s perception. If there may have been a perception of sexual harassment, then the Claimant’s case does not stand up.

In relation to the allegation that the Defendant was risk failed because he had rejected Mrs Q’s sexual advances, Ms Wass rationalised this in the following way: the Defendant could not understand how he could have been risk failed on the merits, and so concluded that it must have been because he rejected Mrs Q’s advances. All the Defendant was saying was: I should not have been risk failed, it must have been because Mrs Q was upset with me and the only reason I can think of is that I rejected her sexual advances. Of course, this rationalisation only stands up if the Defendant had in fact rejected Mrs Q’s sexual advances: if I find that there were no such sexual advances and therefore he did not reject them, then the “house of cards” upon which this rationalisation is based collapses.

Referring to demeanour, Ms Wass submitted that the court should take account of the Defendant’s character and background. Thus, his background is African and English is not his first language. Furthermore, it is to be understood that the Defendant became upset at times: he lost in the ET, he had a costs order of £20,000 made against him and he is now facing these proceedings and potential imprisonment. She asked the court to guard against implying dishonesty from inconsistency, using as an example the fact that Mrs Q had denied ever using the lifts at the bank, but then accepted in cross-examination that she did sometimes use the lift.

Ms Wass addressed the allegations concerning Lola Ogunfowora and the Claimant’s case that the allegations could be proved by reference to the documents and the Defendant’s differing accounts so that it was unnecessary for Ms Ogunfowora to have been called. Ms Wass submitted that, on any view, there was clearly a dispute between the Defendant and Ms Ogunfowora and it would not be safe to draw an inference of fabrication by reference to the Defendant’s failure to mention her remarks in his email to Ms Mehta on 20 November 2019 (page 2121 of the Additional Bundle).

So far as the diary is concerned, it is significant that the original was in fact produced to the ET and the Claimant could have asked for it to be analysed by an expert at that stage, had they wanted. In the absence of expert evidence from a forensic scientist specialising in the examination of documents (such experts frequently giving evidence before the courts in both criminal and civil cases), the Claimant had come nowhere near to proving that the diary was fabricated and it is perfectly conceivable that the diary is genuine.

Summarising her submissions, Ms Wass reminded the court that this is a general contempt allegation as opposed to, for example, breach of a Court Order and she suggested that the court might reach the right result by asking itself a series of questions akin to a jury being given a route to verdict:

Replying briefly to Ms Wass’ submissions, Mr Browne made the following points:

I remind myself that, in considering the evidence and the allegations against the Defendant, I am applying the criminal standard of proof. Thus, where I am satisfied of a matter to the criminal standard, I shall indicate this by saying: “I am sure that …”. Where I have not indicated that I am sure, it should be taken that I am not satisfied to the criminal standard and the matter is to be regarded as not having been proved.

I further remind myself of the applicable legal principles. I adopt gratefully the exposition of those principles as set out in Mr Browne’s closing skeleton argument, and with which Ms Wass had no disagreement:

“32.

CPR 32.14 does not create this form of contempt liability i.e. making a false statement of truth. It merely recites it for the purposes of drawing attention to a wider principle; see Malgar Ltd v. RE Leach (Engineering) Ltd [2000] FSR 393.18

33.

That principle is that it is a contempt of Court to engage in any conduct which involves an interference with the due administration of justice in a particular case; see AG v. Leveller Magazine [1979] AC 440 per Lord Diplock.

34.

The ET is an “inferior” Court. Thus the High Court has jurisdiction to punish contempt of such a tribunal. This was determined by the Queen’s Bench Division in Peach Grey v. Sommers [1995] ICR 549. 35. Therefore, signing a statement of truth in e.g. a witness statement in the ET without an honest belief in its truth is capable of amounting to contempt of court notwithstanding that the CPR has no application to ET proceedings.

36.

While contempt proceedings have an obvious resemblance to criminal proceedings, e.g. the criminal standard of proof applies, the Defendant has a right to silence and there must be a high standard of procedural fairness, contempt proceedings are civil proceedings: per Masri v. Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) at [157] per Christopher Clarke.

37.

It is for the Bank to prove that D has committed the contempt as alleged on each ground for which permission has been granted.

38.

In respect of each contempt alleged, this must be proved to the criminal standard i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.

39.

In reaching a conclusion on the issues that must be proved to the criminal standard, it is open to a court to draw inferences from primary facts which have been proved. However, a court may not infer the existence of an essential element unless the inference is one that no reasonable person would fail to draw.

40.

In JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov, the Court of Appeal stressed that, although the criminal standard would apply on an application for committal, that did not necessarily require every single aspect of a case to be proved to that standard, but only that the necessary elements of the allegations were proved to that standard. In criminal cases, proof of intent to the criminal standard could be established having regard to the whole of the evidence, whether or not each individual fact which comprised that evidence could itself be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Establishing contempt:

False Statement of Truth

41.

Making a false statement in a witness statement without an honest belief in its truth amounts to a contempt of court. The elements of liability are that:-

(a)

The statement was false;

(b)

It interfered with the course of justice in a material aspect;

(c)

At the time it was made, the maker (i) had no honest belief in its truth and (ii) knew of its likelihood to interfere with justice;

(d)

A statement of truth made recklessly will satisfy the requirement for lack of honest belief.

Interference with the administration of justice

42.

It is not necessary to establish interference with the administration of justice that conscious thought is given to the significance or consequences of the act for the administration of justice. It is enough to show that in providing a witness statement with a statement of truth, a person has no honest belief in its truth and knows of its likelihood to interfere with justice.

Giving false evidence on oath/affirmation

43.

A witness who gives evidence on oath/affirmation to the court (or tribunal) which he knows to be false/is reckless as to whether it is true commits a contempt of court.

44.

Such a witness also thereby interferes with the due administration of justice, it being obvious to such a person that giving dishonest evidence on oath/affirmation has at least the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.

I found Mrs Q to be an entirely honest and credible witness and I am sure that she came to court to tell the truth and that she did so. The only real inconsistency was when she said that she had not told the Defendant she could see his vest and that she would never have said that, when she has said something to that effect in her Affidavit and witness statement. However, I do not regard that as crucially important. Mrs Q was consistent throughout that her remark was purely one between friends in the context of two people who used to discuss fashion together, that she had certainly never said anything about being able to see the Defendant’s nipples and that her remark was not flirtatious and could not have been so interpreted by the Defendant. She certainly never said to the Defendant “I fancy you”. Mrs Q’s evidence was otherwise wholly consistent with what she had said in her Affidavit and what she had said in her witness statement for the ET and what she had said in evidence before the ET. I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence in its entirety and accordingly rejecting the evidence of the Defendant.

I also found Mr Booth to be an entirely straightforward, truthful and honest witness. I accept his evidence in its entirety. In particular, I accept that there was never a meeting between him and the Defendant on the morning of 19 November. In the light of my acceptance of the evidence of Mr Booth, I am sure that the reference in the Defendant’s diary to their meeting being postponed to 19 November 2019 was added, in a different pen, at a significantly later date in order to bolster his case in the ET. It is highly unlikely that expert forensic examination of the diary would have provided further elucidation.

Quite apart from my acceptance of the evidence of Mrs Q and Mr Booth, there were such discrepancies, inconsistencies and impossibilities in the Defendant’s evidence that it was quite incapable of acceptance and the more I heard of his evidence, the more I became sure that his evidence was untrue, and deliberately so.

I should stress that my assessment of the three witnesses who gave live evidence before me was by no means based upon their demeanour alone and I am conscious of the wise dictum of Arden LJ in Re Mumtaz Properties [2012] 2 BCLC 109 where she said at paragraph 12:

“[12] There are many situations in which the court is asked to assess the credibility of witnesses from their oral evidence, that is to say, to weigh up their evidence to see whether it is reliable. Witness choice is an essential part of the function of a trial judge and he or she has to decide whose evidence, and how much evidence, to accept. This task is not to be carried out merely by reference to the impression that a witness made giving evidence in the witness box. It is not solely a matter of body language or the tone of voice or other factors that might generally be called the ‘demeanour’ of a witness. The judge should consider what other independent evidence would be available to support the witness. Such evidence would generally be documentary but it could be other oral evidence, for example, if the issue was whether a Defendant was an employee, the judge would naturally consider whether there were any PAYE records or evidence, such as evidence in texts or e-mails, in which the Defendant seeks or is given instructions as to how he should carry out work. This may be particularly important in cases where the witness is from a culture or way of life with which the judge may not be familiar. These situations can present particular dangers and difficulties to a judge.”

Thus, consistently with the appropriate approach, I have looked at the surrounding documentary evidence to see what support it lends to the oral testimony and the extent to which it endorses the impression I had of the witnesses. Almost without exception, such evidence was fully consistent with the evidence of Mrs Q and Mr Booth, and casts severe doubt not just on the accuracy but on the veracity of the Defendant’s evidence.

I start with the allegations in relation to Mrs Q and grounds 2-6. These relate to two specific events said by the Defendant to have occurred on 7 October 2019 and then in the third week of October. However, it is important, in my judgment, to bear in mind that these were put forward by the Defendant not as isolated events, but as illustrative of a pattern of behaviour by Mrs Q over a considerable period of time in the summer and early autumn of 2019. Thus, at paragraph 13 of his Particulars of Claim in the ET (see paragraph 18 above) the Defendant alleged that “on several occasions in the summer of 2019” Mrs Q commented that she could see his skin and that “on several occasions in the summer of 2019” Mrs Q stated that she could see his nipples. Of course, if there had been a mounting campaign of sexual harassment by Mrs Q culminating in the remarks on 7 October and the alleged attempt at sexual assault in the third week of October, that would have made (and did make) the claim all the more serious and would have given credence to the Defendant’s claim at paragraph 38 of his Particulars of Claim in the ET that Mrs Q’s conduct “had the purpose or effect of … violating the Claimant's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment for the Claimant” thereby bolstering his claim for damages. In my judgment, there was not a shred of truth in any of the allegations which the Defendant has made against Mrs Q. First, given the nature of the allegations, Mr Browne is right that there is no room for middle ground or a defence of misinterpretation or erroneous perception. Secondly, for all the reasons exposed by Mr Browne in his cross-examination of the Defendant and expressed in his final submissions, I am sure that the allegations made by the Defendant were both untrue (and deliberately so) and a deliberate attempt to deceive the Tribunal into awarding him damages, compounded by the lies which the Defendant has told to this court, both in his evidence and in his Affidavit. It is for this reason that there have been so many inconsistencies in the Defendant’s evidence, compared to what he has alleged in the documents. He would have been deeply unhappy in his work, but he told Garry Booth that he loved working at the bank. He would not have wanted to socialise with Mrs Q on any level, but, as I find, he was excessively friendly towards her and invited himself to lunch with her and Daren shortly before she left the bank. If the attempted sexual assault occurred on the Friday in the third week of October, it is inexplicable that, on 21 November 2019, the Defendant should have sent an email after he had been dismissed in which he stated “as per the sexual assault/harassment from Q. This is a request on the bank to secure the CCTV in the coffee area exactly 2 months ago.” The fact is that the inconsistencies in the documents and in the Defendant’s evidence amply bear out and confirm the strong impression which I gained listening to the Defendant’s evidence that his evidence was untrue, and deliberately so. In my judgment, the contempt of court set out in grounds 2-6, which I find proved to the criminal standard are serious for two reasons. First, they represent an attempt to deceive the court into awarding him substantial damages. Secondly, they were a deliberate and wicked assault on the integrity and professional standing of Mrs Q, someone who, I find, never did anything except show kindness towards the Defendant. The wickedness is enhanced by the fact that in November 2019, when these allegations were first made, Mrs Q was still grieving for her mother, who had died less than 3 months earlier, and would have been extremely emotionally vulnerable. The effect on Mrs Q has been predictably serious, as shown by Dr Badenhorst’s psychiatric report dated May 2022 and by Mrs Q’s “impact statement” dated 22 May 2022 where she says, among other things,

“The allegations were so grave in nature, I felt like I was a criminal and stripped of my dignity as a woman and a wife. It was so insulting and painful that I could not stop thinking about it – the unfairness and the horrible things said about me were haunting me everywhere and especially at night. In the acute phase in around July 2020, I couldn’t sleep at all for almost a week and I had to use strong sleeping pills prescribed by my GP.”

It follows from my findings in relation to Grounds 2-6 that all the Defendant’s evidence as to the reasons for his not reporting Mrs Q’s conduct earlier are equally untrue and I find that Grounds 24, 25 and 26 are also proved to the criminal standard. The plain reason why the Defendant did not report Mrs Q’s conduct earlier is because it did not happen. However, in order to camouflage this potentially serious weakness in the credibility of his claim, the Defendant has invented a bogus concern for Mrs Q’s sensibilities and vulnerability in the aftermath of her mother’s unexpected death. It is thus no surprise that the Defendant came seriously unstuck in relation to the timing. He asserted that he first learned of Mrs Q’s bereavement in November 2019 and if that is right, it cannot explain a failure to report conduct which, on his case, had been ongoing through the summer of 2019 culminating in the events of 7 October and third week of October. I do accept, though, that Ms Wass’ point about the difference in this regard between the evidence of the Defendant and the evidence of Mrs Q was a point well made: on Mrs Q’s evidence, the Defendant found out about her bereavement significantly sooner and was expressing his condolences towards her soon after her return to the UK in September 2019. However, that does not undermine in any way my fundamental finding: the conduct alleged against Mrs Q never occurred and therefore the Defendant has invented an excuse for not reporting it, a pure invention on his part because he could never have thought to himself “this conduct is wrong, but I won’t report it because of what Mrs Q has gone through” when, as I have found, the conduct never took place. Again, these lies have been told by the Defendant deliberately and intentionally to bolster the credibility of his claim for damages in the ET. Their wickedness is enhanced because of the cynical way they have sought to exploit genuine grief and vulnerability on the part of Mrs Q, and his use of this as an untrue excuse would again have aggravated the effect on Mrs Q herself, both in the ET proceedings and again in these proceedings.

I turn to Grounds 10, 11 and 31 and the Claimant’s case that the Defendant falsely asserted that he had been referred to as “this boy” by Lola Ogunfowora on 14 November 2019 and 18 November 2019, and that Ms Ogunfowora made unwanted physical contact with him on 18 November 2019. Dealing first with ground 31, I find it significant that, in her email to Ms Mehta of 19 November 2019, Ms Ogunfowora had stated:

“His words directly to me were “ I don’t want this girl to mark my cases, I don’t want this girl touching my mouse, tell this girl not to talk to me”

Furthermore, in his email of 20 November 2019 to Ms Mehta, the Defendant had complained of Ms Ogunfowora having grabbed his mouse. There is thus contemporaneous evidence that the Defendant was complaining about Ms Ogunfowora having touched his mouse. It certainly seems to me possible that this would have been at a time when the Defendant had his hand on the mouse and therefore, although there may have been some exaggeration or embellishment on the part of the Defendant in relation to this incident, I consider that there is a sufficient factual basis for the Defendant’s original complaint, supported by contemporaneous evidence, that I cannot be sure that Ground 31 is proved

Grounds 10 and 11 are quite different. For the reasons set out by Mr Browne in his closing submissions, I am sure that the Defendant’s allegation that Ms Ogunfowora had referred to him as “this boy” was untrue and only made because the Claimant had pleaded that Lola Ogunfowora had complained about the Defendant referring to her as “this girl”. Had the Defendant’s allegation been genuine, I am sure that the Defendant would have raised it sooner, most likely in his email to Ms Mehta of 20 November 2019. In that email, the Defendant stated

“Hello Yogita.

Please find below is a re-escalation to Advisory and a reconfirmation from Advisory regarding my position on the reason why Lola Ogunfowara (“Hereinafter, Lola) had the audacity to come to my desk and grabbed my mouse .raised her voice. This is not an isolated incident as | have other instances of such misconduct from Lola.

You would recall. I reported her making inappropriate comments on me when my first case (client E) was assigned to her; I had a meeting with you where I reported this. I expected a caution to Lola as to how she communication to colleagues going forward - obviously. this did not happen.”

In my judgment, it is inconceivable that if there was any truth in the suggestion that Ms Ogunfowora had referred to the Defendant as “this boy” on 14 and 18 November 2019, the Defendant would not have raised it with Ms Mehta in this email. Furthermore, as pointed out by Mr Browne in his submissions (and in his cross-examination of the Defendant), his accounts of the incidents of 14 and 18 November 2019 kept changing, indicative of the fact that they did not happen in the way he alleges. I find that the truth lies in Ms Ogunfowora’s email to Ms Mehta of 19 November where she stated:

“I wish to officially make a complaint against [the Defendant].

I have reviewed 3 of cases and on all 3 occasions he has taken all the feedback personal instead bearing the interest of the bank at heart. It has become apparent to me that only reads to respond, instead of reading to understand the points that have been raised. He comes back very defensive without even tackling the points raised in the first instance. I have taken the pain to seat down [sic] with him to explain what is required on a point by point basis, as I considered that KYC is not just a tick box exercise.

Following a series of altercations with him, whenever I give feedback on any of his cases, it has become apparent that, he is not professional in his approach in addressing any issues/points raised.

The last straw was yesterday afternoon which I believe you were privy to. His words directly to me were “I don’t want this girl to mark my cases, I don’t want this girl touching my mouse, tell this girl not to talk to me”. Other than this being unprofessional and completely uncalled for given the circumstances, I also consider that this is quite rude and offensive language within an office environment.

It is for the above reasons that I would now like this issue to be addressed formally.”

I have no difficulty in making this finding even in the absence of having heard directly from Ms Ogunfowora. I am fortified in this finding by the evidence of Mr Booth as set out at paragraph 37 of this judgment.

Finally, I turn to Grounds 29 and 30 which relate to the entries made by the Defendant in his diary. Again, I find myself wholly convinced by the evidence of Mr Booth in this regard, as I have set out at paragraph 39 of this judgment and as confirmed by him in his oral evidence. For the reasons stated by Mr Booth, repeated and built upon by Mr Browne in his submissions, I find that the entries made by the Defendant, and in particular the entry “Meeting with Gary postponed for tomorrow 19.11.19” was made much later, in connection with the ET and in an attempt to bolster his case, when in fact, as I find, there was no meeting between the Defendant and Mr Booth on 19 November 2019. As Mr Browne put to the Defendant, it is inconceivable that if there was a meeting on 19 November, the Defendant would not have referred to that meeting in his email to Mr Booth on 20 November but only to the meeting on 18 November. It follows that his note of that meeting (at page 1344 of the Additional Bundle) is not genuine. Furthermore, given my finding in relation to Grounds 10 and 11, I find that the Defendant’s note at the foot of page 1343 of the Additional Bundle is not genuine, referring as it does to “Lola making unwarranted physical contact with me in the office and calling me boy”, but was made considerably later to bolster his ET claim. Again, I have no difficulty in making this finding even in the absence of having heard directly from Ms Ogunfowora.

In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I find that Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30 have all been proved to the criminal standard and that the Defendant is in serious contempt of court in making false statements of truth, in giving false evidence on oath/affirmation and that such falsities were designed to, and did, interfere with the due administration of justice. I find the allegations in the Claim Form in these proceedings, as set out at paragraph 8 of this judgment, all to have been made out and proved. Answering the questions proposed by Ms Wass’ ‘route to verdict’:

I shall hear from Counsel as to the appropriate sanction.