Key Facts
- •Oliver Hardiman (Defendant) was found in contempt of court for breaching a court order related to the unauthorized sale of Wimbledon tickets.
- •The order, issued by Mr Justice Bourne, prohibited unlawful ticket trading and required Hardiman to provide information about his transactions within 24 hours.
- •Hardiman failed to provide the required information and was found within a prohibited area near the Wimbledon premises.
- •Hardiman initially claimed inability to provide information due to self-incrimination concerns, later citing threats after media coverage.
- •The court considered whether the obligation to provide information was ongoing beyond the 24-hour deadline, ultimately deciding it was not.
- •Hardiman admitted contempt at a hearing, but his attempts to purge contempt were deemed insufficient.
Legal Principles
A person is guilty of contempt by breach of a court order only if (a) they received notice of the unambiguous order and did/failed to do a prohibited/required act; (b) they intended to do/fail to do the act; (c) they knew all facts making the act/omission a breach.
Case Law
Mandatory injunctions require compliance within a specified time and are constructed strictly due to potential penal consequences. Failure to comply within the time limit constitutes a single act of contempt, not continuing contempt.
Kea Investments Ltd v Eric Watson [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch)
Sentencing for contempt aims to punish, deter, and coerce compliance. Factors include seriousness of conduct, prejudice to claimant, culpability, intent, mitigation, and cooperation.
Various case law cited in sections 53-54
Outcomes
Hardiman found guilty of contempt of court for breaching paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of the Order.
He failed to provide required information and was present in a prohibited area. His attempts to mitigate were deemed insufficient.
Sentence of 4 months imprisonment for breach of paragraph 3(c) (failure to provide information). No separate penalty for breach of paragraph 4 (vicinity ban).
The breach of paragraph 3(c) was deemed serious, warranting a custodial sentence despite some cooperation and mitigation. The breach of paragraph 4 had low culpability given uncertainty over knowledge of the order.