Earlier this month, Johnson referred the question of whether Menon should face contempt of court proceedings to another judge, Justice Nicklin.
A court order published on Tuesday said Nicklin believed there was enough evidence to suggest Menon may have acted in contempt of court and it was in the public interest to bring proceedings against him.
Setting out the allegations against Menon, the order said he made statements “which were capable of suggesting to the jury that the court was not impartial”.
The order said he did this by referring to the defendants being prevented from giving evidence about Elbit Systems and later referring to Elbit Systems being protected and “wined and dined in the corridors of power”.
“Those statements were capable of creating the impression that the defendants had been treated unfairly and that Elbit Systems had been improperly protected in the proceedings,” the order said.
The barrister denied ignoring the judge, saying that he was performing his duty to fairly and fully represent his client.
Adrian Waterman KC, representing Menon at the Court of Appeal earlier this year, said the barrister “did not think he was knowingly breaching the order” and was “utterly shocked at what was being suggested”.
He will appear at the Royal Courts of Justice on 28 July.
