Introduction

This High Court decision arises from Sky UK Limited’s civil action against an Irish reseller of an IPTV piracy service operated as “IPTV is Easy.” The case is procedurally unusual: by the time of the hearing, the substantive copyright claim had effectively concluded on consent—leaving for determination only Sky’s application to punish David Dunbar for multiple breaches of a High Court order that combined Anton Piller (search and preservation) and Mareva (asset freezing) relief.

On 16 May 2025, the Court granted an extensive ex parte order, perfected on 19 May 2025, authorising entry and search of the defendant’s premises, compelling disclosure, preservation and non-dissipation of assets, and imposing an in camera restriction. On 21 May 2025 the court-appointed supervising solicitor, accompanied by Sky’s team, attempted to execute the order. Dunbar refused entry—twice—despite clear explanations of the order and its consequences. He then reformatted his computer, deleted Telegram groups, “tipped off” his IPTV supplier MBM, and dissipated assets including cryptocurrency, all in clear breach of the order.

The hearing on 29 July 2025 addressed two strands: judgment in default of defence (ultimately granted by consent) and Sky’s application for attachment and committal for contempt. Sanfey J. was asked to decide whether to impose a coercive or punitive sanction and, if punitive, which sanction and at what level. The decision sets out a structured approach to punitive civil contempt in the context of digital evidence spoliation and breach of combined Anton Piller/Mareva relief, while also granting robust, permanent copyright remedies.

Summary of the Judgment

Substantive IP orders (granted by consent)

• Declarations that Sky’s copyright was infringed and broadcasts disseminated without authority (para. 57).
• Damages of €480,000 under section 127 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 (as amended), or otherwise, reflecting admitted profits from the infringing operation (paras. 34, 57).
• Permanently restraining and disabling orders against any involvement with IPTV services, development or facilitation of infringing technology, promotion/advertising, or transfer of any assets connected to the infringing services (para. 57(7)(a)–(e)).
• Costs to Sky, to be adjudicated in default of agreement (para. 57(9)).

Contempt findings and sanction

• The Court characterised the contempt motion as punitive, not coercive, because the substantive proceedings had ended and Sky sought punishment to vindicate the court’s authority (paras. 71–72).
• Applying the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt), which was eased by the defendant’s admissions, the Court found serious, wilful, and deliberate breaches amounting to a gross affront to the court (paras. 73–77, 81, 83).
• Proven breaches included: refusing entry to execute the Anton Piller order; tipping off MBM; destroying evidence (reformatting PC, deleting Telegram accounts/groups); breaching the Mareva order by dissipating crypto assets and selling his car; and breaching the in camera aspect (paras. 39(a)(i)–(x), 77–79).
• Although the defendant doctored a Binance statement, the Court did not proceed to find perjury or determine the “lying by omission” allegations due to contested mens rea and the interest in finality (paras. 80, 84).
• Sanction: a punitive fine of €30,000, payable by 31 October 2025, accompanied by a strong warning that imprisonment remains a likely sanction in similar future cases (paras. 98–99). The Court referenced the State’s right to recover unpaid fines (Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Burke (No. 3) and (No. 4)) (para. 98).

Analysis

Precedents cited and their influence

• Keegan v De Burca [1973] IR 223: Distinguished between criminal (punitive) and civil (coercive) contempt. Forms the conceptual baseline (para. 66).
• Laois County Council v Hanrahan [2014] 3 IR 143:
  • Fennelly J. recognised hybrid cases and articulated the modern principles governing punitive responses in civil contempt, including that punishment vindicates the court’s authority and is a last resort for serious, deliberate breaches, with any imprisonment fixed in term (paras. 66–69).
  • McKechnie J. indicated that only conduct that is “serious,” “outrageous,” “wilful,” “deliberate,” or a “gross affront” warrants punitive sanction (para. 70).
• Shell E&P Ireland v McGrath & Ors [2007] 1 IR 671 (Finnegan P): Confirmed punitive committal as a last resort to vindicate the court’s authority in cases of serious misconduct; any imprisonment must be for a definite term; drew on English authorities including Jennison v Baker, Yager v Musa, Danchevsky v Danchevsky, and Phonographic Performance Ltd v Amusement Caterers (paras. 67–68).
• RAS Medical Ltd v Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland [2019] 1 IR 63 (Clarke CJ): Reaffirmed the need for the criminal standard and procedural fairness; where facts are contested, cross‑examination is critical; here, the admissions obviated that need (paras. 73–74).
• Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch); O’Shea v The Governor of Shelton Abbey [2015] IEHC 620; Flood v Lawlor [2002] 3 IR 67: Inform comparative sentencing ranges in contempt (2–3 months commonly used), helping the Court weigh prison vs fine (para. 92).
• Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Burke (No. 3) [2025] IEHC 104; (No. 4) [2025] IEHC 208: Recognised the State’s right to recover fines, informing the practicality of the fine route (para. 98).
• Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, s.127: Statutory basis for damages in infringement proceedings; underpinned the €480,000 award (para. 57).

Legal reasoning

1. Jurisdiction and procedure: Valid service of the penal-endorsed order (21 May 2025) and of motions; no need for a formal attachment order because the defendant attended voluntarily (para. 64). The defendant took no procedural points (paras. 59–60, 64–65).
2. Character of the application: Punitive, not coercive. Substantive rights had been vindicated by declarations, damages, injunctions, and costs; the remaining question was punishment to vindicate the court’s authority (paras. 71–72).
3. Standard and proof: Contempt must be established beyond reasonable doubt (RAS Medical). Extensive admissions made the proof straightforward (paras. 73–75).
4. Findings of breach:
   • Refusal to allow entry to execute the Anton Piller order, twice, after clear explanations (paras. 10–16, 77, 83).
   • Tipping off MBM, leading to loss of evidence; breach of the in camera order (paras. 40(2), 42, 77, 79).
   • Active destruction of digital evidence: reformatting the PC; deleting Telegram groups/accounts; closing accounts (paras. 29–31, 43, 77).
   • Asset dissipation: crypto transfers; sale of car (breach of Mareva order); doctoring a Binance statement to obscure a transfer (paras. 39(a)(x), 44–46, 78–79, 80, 83).
5. Sanction selection: The Court acknowledged compelling arguments for imprisonment but treated prison as a last resort, examining whether a fine would be adequate and effective in light of:
   • Outstanding liabilities exceeding €0.5m and likely execution steps (paras. 96).
   • Unclear financial picture and possible undisclosed assets (paras. 89–91).
   • Personal and family disruption, employment risks, possible further investigations/prosecutions (paras. 96–97).
   This multi-factor assessment culminated in a €30,000 punitive fine, payable by 31 October 2025, coupled with an explicit warning that similar future breaches may result in imprisonment (paras. 98–99).
6. Non-determination of “lying by omission” allegations: To avoid a collateral mens rea inquiry and in the interest of finality, the Court did not adjudicate those contested strands (para. 84).

The “Dunbar Factors” for choosing a punitive sanction in civil contempt

While not framed as a formal test, the decision crystallises a practical checklist to guide courts when selecting between a fine and imprisonment for punitive civil contempt after the substantive dispute is resolved:

• Nature and gravity of the contempt: deliberate, wilful, repeated, and undermining the court’s process (paras. 77, 83).
• Purpose of sanction: vindication of the court’s authority rather than coercion (paras. 71–72, 87–89).
• Adequacy and effectiveness of a fine: clarity about the contemnor’s means; risk of “salting away” assets; enforceability (paras. 89–91, 98).
• Broader consequences already confronting the contemnor: damages/costs liabilities, job loss risk, public exposure, potential regulatory or criminal follow‑on, family impact (paras. 96–97).
• Proportionality and last-resort principle: prison is a last resort reserved for serious misconduct where a fine would be inadequate (paras. 88–93, 99).

This constellation of considerations—rooted in Hanrahan and Shell—now sits in a modern, digital-evidence context where “tipping off” and expeditious deletion in cloud and messaging ecosystems can annihilate probative material in minutes.

Impact

Contempt and enforcement practice

• Reinforces that refusal to execute an Anton Piller order, even briefly and despite explanation, will almost inevitably be treated as serious, wilful contempt.
• Confirms “tipping off” third parties in breach of an in camera order, especially where it leads to destruction of evidence, is a grave affront and supports punitive sanction.
• Shows the Court’s readiness to punish digital spoliation—including reformatting devices and deleting messaging channels—carried out immediately after service.
• Signals that doctoring financial records, notably crypto statements, may border on perjury and will severely damage credibility, even if not finally adjudicated in this case.
• Highlights that Mareva exceptions for “day-to-day expenses” and “taking legal advice” do not permit significant asset disposals (such as selling a high‑value car) without court approval.
• Provides a calibrated approach to sanctions, but also a stark warning that imprisonment will be imposed in future on similar facts (paras. 99, 92–93).

Copyright/IPTV piracy litigation

• Confirms the efficacy of coordinated Anton Piller and Mareva relief in piracy cases, including:
  • Independent supervising solicitor oversight;
  • Immediate execution windows;
  • Compelled access to passwords, two-factor authentication, cloud accounts, and devices;
  • In camera protection pending further order (paras. 8–9).
• Articulates comprehensive, permanent injunctions tailored to modern IPTV ecosystems—disabling panels/servers, code repositories, brand assets, and promotional infrastructure (para. 57(7)).
• Damages at €480,000 under CRRA s.127 achieved efficiently where the defendant admits quantum; this signals a pragmatic route for rights holders when proofs align with defendants’ admissions.
• Underscores that casual or seemingly minor “tip-offs,” as here from FACT, can unravel large-scale operations, amplifying deterrence (para. 100).

Procedure and proof

• Reaffirms the criminal standard of proof in contempt and the need for cross‑examination where material facts are contested. Where admissions are made, the court can proceed on affidavits (paras. 73–75).
• Demonstrates the Court’s willingness to focus punitive findings on admitted or uncontested conduct and leave contested allegations unadjudicated to avoid disproportionate procedural complexity (para. 84).

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Anton Piller order: A civil search-and-preserve order granted without notice, allowing entry to premises and seizure/preservation of evidence at risk of destruction. It commonly requires supervision by an independent solicitor and includes safeguards for fairness.
• Mareva order: An asset-freezing injunction preventing a defendant from dissipating assets pending further order. Limited carve-outs for normal living expenses and taking legal advice do not authorise significant asset disposals without the court’s leave.
• In camera order (s.45 Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961): Proceedings or materials dealt with otherwise than in public. Disclosing protected information (e.g., to a third‑party supplier) breaches the order and can be contempt.
• Attachment and committal: The mechanism by which a court enforces compliance with its orders, including seeking the arrest (attachment) and punishment (committal) of a contemnor.
• Punitive vs coercive contempt:
  • Coercive: Aims to compel compliance with an order (e.g., imprison until compliance).
  • Punitive: Aims to punish past defiance to vindicate the court’s authority (e.g., a fine or fixed-term imprisonment).
• Standard of proof: Breach of a court order leading to contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, reflecting its penal character.
• “Tipping off”: Alerting third parties to an order’s existence or the imminent execution of a search, leading to evasive action or evidence destruction.
• CRRA 2000, s.127: Provides the statutory framework for awarding damages in copyright infringement proceedings.
• Independent supervising solicitor: A court-appointed solicitor who oversees the execution of an Anton Piller order, ensuring fairness, explaining the order in plain language, and reporting back to the court.

Practical Takeaways

For rights holders

• Prepare comprehensive Anton Piller/Mareva applications that anticipate digital spoliation: include passwords, 2FA, cloud services, messaging apps, and cryptocurrency platforms in the order’s scope.
• Use independent technical teams and a supervising solicitor; present defendant with contact options for immediate legal advice.
• Move swiftly to committal proceedings when execution is obstructed; amend contempt motions to capture newly discovered misconduct.
• Expect courts to grant broad permanent injunctions that neutralise the entire operational infrastructure of IPTV piracy.

For defendants

• Immediate legal advice is critical. Refusal of entry, tipping off, and evidence destruction after service will likely be deemed wilful contempt warranting punishment.
• Do not assume sales “to fund legal fees” are permitted under a Mareva. Seek court approval for any material disposals.
• Provide complete financial disclosure, including crypto wallet histories and betting accounts. Doctoring records is itself potentially contempt/perjury.
• Even where you consent to judgment, past defiance may still attract punitive sanction.

For practitioners and courts

• The “Dunbar Factors” offer a pragmatic framework for choosing between fine and imprisonment in punitive civil contempt, especially in digital evidence cases.
• Where possible, confine punitive findings to clear, admitted breaches to avoid elaborate mens rea inquiries that delay resolution.
• Set clear payment dates on fines and record the State’s recovery rights to ensure enforceability.

Conclusion

Sky UK Ltd v Dunbar is a significant modern iteration of civil contempt law applied to digital piracy. It delivers three enduring messages:

1. Defiance of Anton Piller and Mareva orders—especially refusal of entry, “tipping off,” and rapid digital spoliation—will be treated as serious, wilful contempt. The court will punish to vindicate its authority.
2. When substantive proceedings are complete, the court will calibrate punitive sanctions by reference to proportionality, effectiveness, and a spectrum of contextual factors. In Dunbar, those considerations supported a substantial fine; in similar future cases, imprisonment remains a realistic outcome.
3. On the copyright front, robust declarations, significant damages, and broad permanent injunctions demonstrate that the civil jurisdiction provides powerful remedies against IPTV piracy, even where operations are diffuse and digitally mediated.

The decision thus refines Irish contempt jurisprudence for the cloud-and-crypto era and offers a practical roadmap—both for enforcing and for complying with emergency IP orders. While Dunbar avoided prison this time, the Court’s warning is unmistakable: future contemnors may not be so fortunate.