Sky UK Ltd v Dunbar

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey
• Judgment Date: 20 August 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 465
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2025/2704P]

Between

Sky UK Limited

Plaintiff

and

David Dunbar

Defendant

[2025] IEHC 465

[Record No. 2025/2704P]

THE HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL-INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TECHNOLOGY

Judgment in default of defence – Committal – Sanction – Plaintiff seeking judgment in default of defence and committal of the defendant – Whether the court’s disapproval of the defendant’s actions must be expressed by the imposition on the defendant of a punitive sanction

Facts: The plaintiff, Sky UK Ltd, alleged that the defendant, Mr Dunbar, had provided an internet protocol television (IPTV) service called “IPTV is Easy”, and had “[w]rongfully, unlawfully, without the consent or license of the Plaintiff, and in breach of the Plaintiff’s copyright ... provided infringing IPTV services and/or subscriptions ... to customers including livestreams of all of the channels included in Sky’s television subscription services in Ireland and the UK, including the Plaintiff’s live sports and cinema broadcasts”. The defendant accepted the substance of those allegations. The plaintiff applied to the High Court for judgment in default of defence and also for committal of the defendant. The matter was heard by Sanfey J on 29 July 2025. The application for committal was based primarily on the breach by the defendant on 21 May 2025 of an order made by Sanfey J on 16 May 2025 and perfected on 19 May 2025. The defendant accepted that he failed to obey the order, and consented on 29 July 2025 to certain reliefs sought by the plaintiff on foot of a motion for judgment returnable on the same day as the application for committal. Effectively, the judgment awarded to the plaintiff brought the substantive proceedings to an end, save for the application for committal.

Held by Sanfey J that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the acts set out in the notice of motion at paras. 8 (i) to (x) were perpetrated by the defendant and that, in all the circumstances, such acts must be viewed as serious, deliberate, wilful, and as a gross affront to the integrity of the court. Sanfey J held that the court’s disapproval must be expressed by the imposition on the defendant of a punitive sanction. Sanfey J noted that, as Fennelly J stated in Laois County Council v Hanrahan [2014] 3 IR 143, the appropriate sanction in the case where a punishment is warranted for civil contempt is either a fine or a term of imprisonment. Sanfey J noted that, in Shell E&P Ireland v McGrath & Ors [2007] 1 IR 671, Finnegan P commented that “committal by way of punishment ... should be the last resort”. Sanfey J agreed with that view; if the imposition of a fine punishes the contemnor effectively and adequately, it is to be preferred to a term of imprisonment. As the imposition of a term of imprisonment is a last resort, Sanfey J examined whether a fine would be an adequate and effective option. He took into account the overall circumstances of the matter and, in particular the extent to which the proceedings had impinged on the defendant’s life and circumstances.

Sanfey J considered that, taking all of the circumstances of the matter into account, the imposition of a fine on the defendant was sufficient punishment. Sanfey J imposed a fine of €30,000 on the defendant, to be discharged by 31 October 2025. Sanfey J noted the acknowledgement of the High Court (Nolan J) in Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Burke (No. 3) [2025] IEHC 104 and (No. 4) [2025] IEHC 208 of the right of the State to take appropriate steps to recover such a fine if it is not paid.

Fine imposed on defendant.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Mark Sanfey delivered on the 20 ^th day of August, 2025 .

Introduction

1 . This judgment concerns applications by the plaintiff for judgment in default of defence and also for committal of the defendant which, for reasons I shall outline below, are the sole remaining issues in the proceedings. The matter was heard by me on 29 July 2025. The defendant attended voluntarily at the hearing, and was represented by solicitor and counsel, as was the plaintiff.

2 . The application for committal is based primarily on the breach by the defendant on 21 May 2025 of an order made by me on 16 May 2025 and perfected on 19 May 2025 (“the order”). The defendant accepts that he failed to obey the order, and consented on 29 July 2025 to certain reliefs sought by the plaintiff on foot of a motion for judgment returnable on the same day as the application for committal. Effectively, the judgment awarded to the plaintiff brings the substantive proceedings to an end, save for the application for committal.

3 . The plaintiff is a UK-based company which broadcasts TV and radio channels by satellite transmission to receivers installed in homes and via set top boxes across Ireland and the UK. Most notably the channels include Sky Cinema and Sky Sports channels. The plaintiff sells subscription services by which customers can gain access to such channels. The plaintiff is the sole owner of the broadcast copyright in the content transmitted by the plaintiff in the UK and Ireland.

4 . The plaintiff alleged in the proceedings that the defendant has provided an internet protocol television (“IPTV”) service called “IPTV is Easy”, and has “[w]rongfully, unlawfully, without the consent or license of the Plaintiff, and in breach of the Plaintiff's copyright… provided infringing IPTV services and/or subscriptions … to customers including live streams of all of the channels included in Sky's television subscription services in Ireland and the UK, including the Plaintiff's live sports and cinema broadcasts” [para. 14, statement of claim]. The defendant accepts the substance of these allegations.

The Proceedings and Orders

5 . The proceedings were initiated by plenary summons on 16 May 2025, and on that date the plaintiff made an application to this court on foot of an ex parte docket which set out various reliefs sought by the plaintiff. In summary, the plaintiff sought an order compelling the defendant to cease all acts infringing or facilitating the infringement of the plaintiff's copyright; the plaintiff also sought relief of an Anton Piller nature allowing persons nominated by the plaintiff to attend on behalf of the plaintiff at the defendant's home to inspect, detain and preserve hard drives or other devices used to effect the alleged infringement. The plaintiff also sought various orders compelling the defendant to cooperate with the plaintiff's representatives and provide them with information, devices or other property which would elucidate the nature and extent of the defendant's activities. The plaintiff sought Mareva relief which would restrain the defendant from dealing with his assets “until such time as the Court shall deem meet or pending further Order of the Court” [para. 9, ex parte docket].

6 . The application was grounded upon the affidavit of Damien Gilmore sworn on 15 May 2025. Mr. Gilmore is the “Anti-Piracy Investigations Manager” for Ireland employed by Sky Subscribers Services Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the plaintiff. His affidavit set out in considerable detail how the defendant came to the plaintiff's attention, and the steps which were taken by the plaintiff to investigate the defendant's activities. Mr. Gilmore described the defendant, at para. 53 of his affidavit, as “an IPTV Reseller, who sells IPTV subscriptions to his customers, and to sub-sellers who sell subscriptions on his behalf, for a cut of the profit. The Defendant provides his customers with (a) details of the apps to download onto a streaming device (e.g. an Amazon Fire stick) and (b) personalised login details for the apps. Via these apps, the end-user has access to thousands of TV channels from Ireland, UK, Europe and beyond”. Further affidavits were sworn by Colin Hulme, a solicitor based in Scotland, who provided details of his firm's work with the plaintiff in Scotland in relation to search and seizure orders. Sean McElligott, a partner in the plaintiff's solicitors, also swore an affidavit addressing the necessity for Anton Piller relief.

7 . Mr. McElligott referred at para. 19 of his affidavit to certain safeguards which are necessary to protect a defendant's interests where an Anton Piller order has been granted, and on behalf of the plaintiff confirmed at para. 20 that certain undertakings were offered in relation to damages and the retention and safe custody of articles, files, devices, documents and/or other property taken by or delivered to the plaintiff pursuant to the court order. Mr. McElligott also averred that courts “usually require that the execution of the Order is supervised by an independent solicitor experienced in the area” [para. 23], and nominated for this purpose Mr. Philip Andrews, a practising solicitor and founder of Andrews Law. In this regard, Mr. McElligott also prepared a list of suitably qualified solicitors from whom the defendant might wish to seek legal advice, to be presented to the defendant so that he could take legal advice as soon as possible [para. 26].

8 . Having heard the application, the court was satisfied to make orders, the relevant portions of which are as follows:

“ IT IS ORDERED pursuant to s.45 Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 and/or the inherent jurisdiction and/or inherent powers of this Honourable Court that the hearing of the within proceedings be otherwise than in public pending further Order

AND IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant his servants or agents:

a) Immediately cease all acts which infringe or which facilitate infringement of the Plaintiff's broadcast copyright whether through the provision of IPTV services or otherwise

AND IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant do forthwith:

b) Allow the persons detailed in the Appendix hereto to enter onto the Defendant's property at 18 Manor Crescent, Roxborough Manor, Co. Wexford Y35 K28R on 21 May 2025 between the hours of 9am and 6pm for the...