Corrigan v Chelsea Football Club Ltd

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to committal orders made for contempt of court after he failed to comply with mandatory disclosure and delivery-up orders made in proceedings brought by Chelsea Football Club to combat ticket touting. The court held that the judge below had been entitled to find that the defendant had notice of the orders and had persistently failed to engage despite repeated invitations to seek legal advice and the availability of legal aid in committal proceedings (CPR Practice Direction 81, paragraph 15 and CPR rule 52.21(2) were noted). Medical and psychiatric material tendered on appeal did not, on the evidence, justify non-engagement or establish inability to instruct or instruct solicitors, and the fresh evidence did not meet the tests for admission (see Ladd v Marshall). The activation of a suspended custodial sentence was a proper exercise of judicial discretion in the circumstances.

Background and parties: Chelsea Football Club commenced High Court proceedings after an agent of the club encountered the defendant attempting to sell a genuine match ticket above face value on 8 April 2019. The club sought damages, an account, and wide-ranging injunctive and mandatory disclosure relief to deter ticket touting.

Procedural posture: Stewart J granted ex parte injunctive and mandatory orders on 15 April 2019. The defendant failed to comply with mandatory disclosure and to attend the return date. Waksman J continued the orders and awarded costs. An application to commit the defendant for contempt and an application for judgment in default were issued. On 15 July 2019 Murray J found contempt proved and imposed a custodial sentence of six months, suspended to permit the defendant to purge his contempt. The suspension was lifted after non-attendance at the return date of 26 July 2019 and the sentence was activated on 30 July 2019. The defendant was released on 4 September 2019 and appealed.

Nature of the appeal and issues: The appellant appealed as of right challenging (i) the making of the committal order and (ii) the activation of the suspended sentence, relying primarily on asserted mental health difficulties and lack of legal representation. He sought to adduce fresh evidence including an affidavit and a psychiatric report.

Court’s issues and reasoning:

• Notice and non-engagement: The court reviewed the documentary record and found abundant evidence that the defendant had been personally served, repeatedly warned (including by a prominent penal notice), and urged to obtain legal advice. The judge below had been entitled to find that the defendant had notice and had wilfully failed to engage.
• Legal representation and legal aid: The court acknowledged authorities emphasising the desirability of representation in committal proceedings (Brown v London Borough of Haringey; O (Committal; Legal Representation)). However, entitlement to representation does not oblige the court to adjourn where the respondent does not seek or genuinely want it. Here the defendant showed no genuine attempt to obtain or instruct counsel despite repeated invitations and information about legal aid.
• Mental health and fresh evidence: The psychiatric report did not demonstrate an inability to engage with proceedings or to obtain legal advice; it did not support claims of active psychosis or demonstrate incapacity to litigate. The fresh evidence could have been adduced below and did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria for admission; it therefore was excluded.
• Discretion to activate sentence: Given persistent non-compliance and lack of engagement, the judge’s decision to activate the suspended custodial sentence was a proper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the application to adduce fresh evidence refused.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the judge below had been entitled to find contempt proved for persistent non-compliance and non-engagement despite clear notice and repeated invitations to seek legal advice and information about legal aid. The psychiatric material and fresh evidence did not justify overturning the committal nor met the criteria for admission; activation of the suspended custodial sentence was a proper exercise of discretion.