Key Facts
- •The Second Defendant was found in contempt of court for breaching an injunction by offering and selling non-transferable Wimbledon tickets.
- •The breach occurred on 14 and 15 July 2023, involving two tickets for Centre Court.
- •The injunction was dated 22 August 2016.
- •The Second Defendant claimed his motivation was to further a client relationship with a hotel.
- •The Second Defendant cited caring responsibilities for his parents undergoing cancer treatment as mitigation.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for breaches of civil injunctions aims to ensure future compliance, punishment, and rehabilitation.
Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 at paragraph 39
Available penalties for contempt of court include imprisonment (up to two years) or an unlimited fine; a sentence of imprisonment may be suspended.
section 14, Contempt of Court Act 1981; AG v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 at paragraphs 43 and 44
Sentencing approach should be analogous to criminal cases, considering culpability and harm caused; a fine should be considered first; if insufficient, the shortest appropriate custodial sentence is imposed; mitigation factors are considered.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392; [2019] 1 WLR 3833, paras 57 to 71
Outcomes
The Second Defendant was sentenced to 13 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.
The court deemed a fine insufficient due to the seriousness of the contempt and the need to deter future breaches. Mitigation factors, including caring responsibilities and precarious financial situation, were considered but did not outweigh the need for a custodial sentence.