The High Court ordered David Dunbar to pay Sky UK Limited €480,000 in damages and a €30,000 fine after finding beyond reasonable doubt that he deliberately and wilfully breached court orders during proceedings over an alleged IPTV operation.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey made the rulings in a judgment delivered on 20 August 2025. The damages judgment was made with Mr Dunbar’s consent and included declarations that Sky’s copyright had been infringed and its broadcasts disseminated without authority. The court also issued permanent injunctions barring him from continuing or developing services that facilitate access to Sky’s copyrighted content. Costs were awarded to Sky, to be assessed if the parties could not agree them.
The contempt application arose from an order made on 16 May 2025. It required Mr Dunbar to stop infringing Sky’s broadcast copyright and allowed a court-appointed independent solicitor and others to enter his property to search for and preserve relevant material. The order also restricted dealings with his assets and disclosure of specified confidential information.
The court found that Mr Dunbar refused the search team entry on two occasions on 21 May, despite being served with the order and having its consequences explained. The judge also found that he alerted his IPTV supplier, identified in the judgment as MBM, and thereby breached the order’s confidentiality and facilitated the destruction of evidence. Mr Dunbar later admitted reformatting his computer and closing his Telegram account and groups. The judge found that he dissipated assets contrary to the order and sold his car in breach of its asset restrictions.
The plaintiff alleged further contempt, including that Mr Dunbar had lied or provided false or misleading information in affidavits. The judge did not decide those allegations, saying they would require an inquiry into his intent and that the contested matters did not need to be resolved to conclude the proceedings.
Mr Dunbar apologised and said he had tried to provide information to address his breach. The judge acknowledged that he had supplied substantial information and that his consent to judgment saved time and costs, but said the destruction of records made it impossible to establish a full picture of his activities and finances.
The court imposed a €30,000 fine, payable by 31 October 2025, finding it sufficient punishment and opting against imprisonment. The judge said the decision should not be taken as an indication of the penalty in future cases, and that Mr Dunbar had come close to being imprisoned.