THE ALL ENGLAND LAWN TENNIS CLUB (CHAMPIONSHIPS) LIMITED & Anor v ISSA HANIF NAKHUDA & Ors

Contempt sentencing has no tariff. The court must assess the particular facts, including culpability, harm, punishment, deterrence and securing future compliance. A further breach during the suspension of an earlier custodial order is an aggravating feature, but the court should reflect it in a single sentence rather than impose a separate sanction for the same matter. Purchasing non-transferable tickets remains a clear breach where the order prohibits buying them, even if personal resale is neither alleged nor proved. A second breach during suspension may cross the custody threshold despite being less serious than the original breach. Immediate custody is not inevitable: the court must consider suspension, extension of the earlier suspension, partial activation and other available orders.

The claimants had obtained a 2017 consent order prohibiting the defendants from dealing in non-transferable Wimbledon tickets, including buying them. In 2020 the fourth defendant admitted an earlier breach and received a thirteen-week custodial sentence suspended for eighteen months.

The claimants applied for committal arising from two admitted purchases of Wimbledon tickets in June 2021 and sought to have the earlier suspended sentence activated. The central issues were whether the admitted conduct constituted contempt, how its seriousness should be assessed, and what order should be made in light of the earlier breach and the suspension period.

1. Contempt and sentencing approach. The two purchases breached subparagraph 6(b) of the 2017 order and contempt was proved to the criminal standard. Under CPR 81.9, the available powers include committal, whether suspended or immediate, and a fine. There is no tariff. The court must assess the particular circumstances, having regard to punishment, deterrence, securing future compliance, culpability and harm.
2. Effect of the earlier suspended sentence. A breach during the suspension period is not automatically followed by activation of the suspended sentence. The court must consider the available options, including extending the suspension, partial activation or another order, as explained by Lloyd LJ in ABC & Ors v CDE & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 533. Here, the suspension-period breach was treated as an aggravating feature of the new contempt and reflected in one sentence, avoiding double counting.
3. Seriousness and mitigation. Buying tickets was a clear breach because purchasing was expressly prohibited, although the conduct was at the lower end of possible breaches and less serious than resale. The previous breach, the warning given by the earlier judge and the occurrence during suspension meant that the custody threshold was crossed. The admission, apology, personal-use explanation and the effect of pandemic prison conditions justified avoiding immediate custody.
4. Order. The court adopted a ten-week custodial starting point, comprising four weeks for the present conduct and six weeks to mark the aggravating effect of the earlier breach and suspension period. The ten-week sentence was suspended for two years. The defendant was ordered to pay £15,000 costs. The judge warned that a further breach, particularly during suspension, might make immediate custody unavoidable, depending on the facts.