The All England Tennis Club (Championships) Limited & Anor v Broker 4 U Ltd & Anor

Sentencing for breach of a civil injunction must secure future compliance, punish the contemnor and promote rehabilitation. The court should assess culpability and harm, first consider whether a fine is sufficient, and impose the shortest custodial term that properly reflects the seriousness of the contempt where imprisonment is necessary. Mitigating circumstances and the impact on dependants must receive due weight. A custodial sentence may be suspended where suspension is likely to encourage compliance or the consequences for others justify it.

The claimants obtained an injunction dated 22 August 2016 concerning non-transferable Wimbledon tickets. In a judgment handed down on the same day as this penalty judgment, the court found the second defendant, Gary Davis, in contempt for offering and arranging the provision of two such tickets on 14 and 15 July 2023.

The present judgment concerned the appropriate penalty. The court considered whether the proven breaches should be treated separately or as one event, the seriousness of the conduct, the defendant’s culpability and mitigation, and whether any custodial sentence should be suspended.

1. Penalty imposed. The several proven breaches were treated as one sentencing event involving the defendant’s dealing with non-transferable Wimbledon tickets. The defendant was sentenced to 13 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for two years on condition that he committed no further breach of the injunction.
2. The purposes of sentencing for breach of a civil injunction include securing future compliance, punishment and rehabilitation, following Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631.
3. The available penalties for an individual contemnor are imprisonment for up to two years or an unlimited fine under section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The court adopted the general approach identified in AG v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, including assessment of seriousness by culpability and harm, consideration of a fine before custody, imposition of the shortest sufficient custodial term, and appropriate weight to mitigation and the effect on dependants.
4. The defendant’s culpability was high because his conduct flouted and undermined the protective purposes of the injunction. The harm was assessed as medium for a single transaction, since hotel guests were deprived of the expected experience and two tennis fans lost the opportunity to attend. Choosing prospective profit and a client relationship over obedience to the order was aggravating.
5. A fine would not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the conduct or protect the efficacy of injunctions in this area. The custodial term was nevertheless limited to 13 weeks because the breach appeared to be a one-off after several years of compliance, with account taken of the defendant’s caring responsibilities and family circumstances. Suspension for two years was appropriate because it was likely to encourage future compliance, with particular regard to the position of the defendant’s parents.