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

The Second Defendant knowingly offered, exposed for sale, caused the transfer, provided and arranged for the provision of non-transferable Wimbledon tickets, in breach of the injunction, proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Claimant: The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Limited; Claimant: The All England Lawn Tennis Ground PLC; Defendant: Broker 4 U Ltd; Defendant: Gary Davis
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 October 2024
Procedural Posture: Contempt Application / Judgment on Liability
Outcome: Second Defendant found in contempt of court for breach of injunction.
Legal Topics: Breach of Injunction, Ticket Resale, Standard of Proof in Contempt, Knowledge and Intention in Contempt

Civil Procedure Injunctions Contempt of Court Breach of Injunction Ticket Resale Standard of Proof in Contempt Knowledge and Intention in Contempt

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Limited

Claimant

The All England Lawn Tennis Ground PLC

Claimant

Broker 4 U Ltd

Defendant

Gary Davis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

1 Did the Second Defendant offer, expose for sale, sell, transfer, cause the transfer, provide or arrange for the provision of non-transferable Wimbledon tickets contrary to the injunction?
2 Did the Second Defendant know the tickets were non-transferable and subject to the injunction?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Second Defendant found in contempt of court for breach of injunction.

Orders

Judgment to be handed down and circulated to parties.
Further hearing to determine appropriate sanction and costs.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.