A Co Wexford man must pay €480,000 in damages to Sky after conceding a High Court action taken by the broadcaster and telecommunications giant over his operation of a “dodgy box” streaming service.
David Dunbar consented to judgment against him after opting not to defend the civil case brought by Sky UK Limited over his infringement of the broadcaster’s copyright.
Mr Dunbar faces further sanction for being in contempt of court, having breached orders aimed at preserving evidence of his copyright infringement and orders freezing his assets, among other directions. A suite of sanctions is open to the court, including imprisonment.
Mr Dunbar, with an address at Manor Crescent, Roxborough Manor, Co Wexford, was previously described by Sky as a “top-level” copyright infringer who may have earned up to €450,000 a year from operating an illegal streaming service. The broadcaster alleged Mr Dunbar provided thousands with access to its copyrighted broadcast material since 2018.
READ MORE
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey was informed that Mr Dunbar was consenting to various reliefs sought by Sky arising from his copyright infringement.
The judge said there was no doubt of Mr Dunbar’s copyright infringement. He ordered him to pay €480,000 in damages to Sky. Mr Dunbar must also pay the broadcaster’s roughly €100,000 legal costs, the judge ruled.
The judge also granted various permanent injunctions against Mr Dunbar, including an order restraining him from ever operating an internet protocol television service (IPTV). IPTV is the technology behind “dodgy box” services.
Mr Justice Sanfey reserved his judgment on an attachment and committal to prison motion moved by Sky over Mr Dunbar’s breach of several court orders.
The court heard Mr Dunbar did not comply with various orders granted to Sky aimed at gathering evidence of his wrongdoing. This included a refusal to comply with an Anton Piller order, which allows for entry to private premises for the purposes of seizing evidence.
Theo Donnelly, counsel for Sky, instructed by Philip Lee LLP, submitted that Mr Dunbar had engaged in clear breaches of court orders.
He said the court orders had been explained to Mr Dunbar in layman’s terms by an independent solicitor who had called to his house on foot of the Anton Piller order.
Despite this, he did not allow the solicitor to enter his premises, and proceeded to destroy evidence of his copyright infringement, among other breaches, Mr Donnelly submitted. Counsel said it was hard to see how Mr Dunbar could have engaged in a more “clear and knowing” contempt of the court orders.
It is Mr Dunbar’s case that when the orders were explained to him by his legal representatives, he realised the seriousness of the matter. Following this, he said he sought to comply with the court’s orders, the court heard.
Darren Lehane, senior counsel, instructed by Dodd Solicitors, for Mr Dunbar, said his client was acknowledging his contempt of court. In considering sanction for his contempt, Mr Lehane asked the court to take into account Mr Dunbar’s speedy consent to a judgment against him in default of defence.
Mr Donnelly said he believed Mr Dunbar’s case has not been referred to An Garda Síochána, but said he had not taken specific instruction on the matter.
The case returns next month.
