High Court Rules on Contempt of Court in Illegal Sale of Non-Transferable Wimbledon Tickets

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3226 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Limited & Anor v Broker 4 U Ltd & Anor, the High Court of Justice addressed a contempt of court scenario involving the unlawful sale and distribution of non-transferable Wimbledon tickets. The key legal principles discussed in this case were the requirements for proving contempt of court and the intended actions of an individual in relation to knowledge about the nature of the items (tickets) being dealt in.

Key Facts

The matter involved The All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), which operates the renowned Wimbledon Tennis Championship, pursuing a contempt application against a defendant who was found to have been involved in the sale of non-transferable Wimbledon tickets in direct violation of an injunction dated August 22, 2016. The injunction explicitly prohibited the defendants from engaging in any trade or dealing with non-debenture Wimbledon tickets.

The ticket sales in question were for the Wimbledon Championship women’s final of 2023, and the defendant was accused of making these non-debenture tickets available to guests through a concierge service at a hotel. Evidence presented included WhatsApp messages between the defendant and the concierge staff, as well as details of the non-genuine ‘James Martin’ account used to facilitate the ticket transactions.

Several key legal principles were applied in this case, the details of which are outlined below:

Notice of the Order

The principle underpins the necessity for a contemnor to have received proper notice of the court order with clear understanding, as outlined in Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357. Actual knowledge of the order may contribute to the sanction but is not required for the finding of contempt.

Intentionality and Knowledge

For contempt to be established, the contemnor must undertake an act prohibited or fail to perform an act mandated by the court order with the intention of engaging in such acts, also knowing all relevant facts that would constitute a breach. This standard does not require the contemnor to know that the act indeed constitutes a breach of the order, as discussed in Varma v Atkinson [2020] EWCA Civ 1602.

Evidential Standards and Hearsay

The case highlights the criminal standard of proof in contempt proceedings, signifying that actions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as stated in Masri v Consolidated Contractors [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm). Hearsay evidence can be considered with caution, and the court should adopt a flexible approach, referencing McKay v The All England Lawn Tennis Club [2020] EWCA Civ 695.

Causation

Causation established whether the contemnor’s actions were sufficiently contributory to the breach, considering the significance of their role in the alleged contemptuous conduct.

Outcomes

The court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had offered, exposed for sale, caused the transfer, provided, and arranged for the provision of the non-transferable Wimbledon Tickets, thereby contravening the Injunction. Moreover, it was determined that the defendant knew these tickets were subject to the Injunction, making his actions intentional and with full knowledge of their non-transferable status.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court’s decision in The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Limited & Anor v Broker 4 U Ltd & Anor reaffirms the rigorous standards required to establish contempt of court, emphasizing the importance of actual knowledge of actions leading to a breach, even if an understanding that those actions are contemptuous is not necessary. The judgment serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of disregarding court orders and the serious ramifications of engaging in such behavior.