Key Facts
- •The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Claimants) brought a contempt application against Gary Davis (Second Defendant) for breaching an injunction prohibiting the sale of non-debenture Wimbledon tickets.
- •The Second Defendant, a ticket broker, facilitated the sale of two non-debenture Wimbledon tickets to guests of the Londoner Hotel via WhatsApp messages.
- •The tickets, obtained through the public ballot and issued to a 'James Martin', were sold for significantly more than their face value.
- •The 'James Martin' account used a false address and email address linked to the Second Defendant.
- •The Second Defendant claimed he believed the tickets were debenture tickets (which are transferable), and therefore not subject to the injunction.
Legal Principles
A person is guilty of contempt by breach of a court order only if: (a) they received notice of the order and did a prohibited act; (b) they intended to do the act; (c) they had knowledge of the facts making the act a breach.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm), Christopher Clarke J at [144] to [157]
The test under the first factor is one of “notice” and not “actual knowledge”. The act constituting the breach must be deliberate, but an intention to commit a breach is not necessary.
Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357 at [54]–[62]
It is not necessary for the contemnor to know that what was being done was a breach of the order.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) at [155]
Hearsay evidence is permissible in civil committal proceedings, requiring a flexible approach.
McKay v The All England Lawn Tennis Club [2020] EWCA Civ 695, Henderson LJ at [75]
Outcomes
The court found the Second Defendant in contempt of court.
The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the Second Defendant offered, exposed for sale, caused the transfer, provided, and arranged the provision of non-transferable tickets, knowing they were subject to the injunction. The court rejected the Second Defendant's claim that he believed the tickets were debenture tickets, finding his evidence lacked substance and that his actions demonstrated knowledge of the tickets' nature.