The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Limited & Anor v Oliver Hardman

A person is guilty of contempt by breach of a court order only where, to the criminal standard, the order was unambiguous and sufficiently notified, the prohibited act or required omission was deliberate, and the contemnor knew the facts making the conduct a breach. A mandatory injunction requiring information within a specified period is construed strictly. Failure to comply by the deadline may be a single act of contempt rather than a continuing breach, although subsequent non-compliance may affect sentence. Imprisonment is appropriate for serious, contumacious flouting of court orders. The court must consider culpability, harm to the administration of justice, mitigation, admission, cooperation, and whether suspension is justified.

The claimants, organisers and owners of the Wimbledon Championships, sought committal of the defendant for contempt after he admitted dealing in non-transferable Wimbledon tickets in breach of their terms and conditions. An interim order required him not to trade unlawfully, to provide detailed transaction information within 24 hours, and to observe a vicinity ban. He failed to provide the required information and entered the prohibited area. The issue included whether the information obligation continued after the 24-hour deadline and what sanction was appropriate. The application was adjourned to allow a further opportunity for compliance.

1. Contempt established. The defendant had notice of the unambiguous order by email. He deliberately entered the prohibited area and deliberately failed to provide the information required by paragraph 3(c). The elements of contempt were proved to the criminal standard. Actual knowledge of the order was not required, although actual knowledge and intention to flout were relevant to sentence.
2. Nature of the information obligation. Mandatory injunctions with penal consequences are construed strictly. Paragraph 3(c) required compliance within 24 hours and did not impose a continuing obligation after the deadline. The failure to comply was therefore a single act of contempt. The defendant’s later refusal to provide information did not create a continuing contempt, but his failure to purge the original contempt remained relevant to sentence.
3. Sentence. The court applied the principles summarised in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Khan, [2022] EWHC 45 (Ch), and related authorities. The purposes of sentence were punishment, deterrence and coercion. The information breach was deliberate, culpable and harmful principally to the administration of justice. The custody threshold was passed and a fine was insufficient.
4. The vicinity-ban breach involved low culpability because the defendant was given the benefit of the doubt that he lacked actual knowledge before entering the area, and he did not repeat the breach. It attracted no separate penalty. Alleged press abuse and threats did not justify suspension or excuse non-compliance. Personal medical circumstances were taken into account but did not establish a basis for suspension.
5. The starting point was six months’ imprisonment, reduced to four months for the admissions and limited mitigation. The sentence for breach of paragraph 3(c) was four months’ imprisonment. The defendant was given one final short opportunity to purge his contempt, failing which the sentence would take effect when the matter returned to court.