The High Court has refused Sky Ireland Limited’s application to strike out a claim by Modulartech Limited, trading as Satworld, over goods seized during a Garda search in November 2019. The court did not decide whether the defendants acted unlawfully. It held that the disputed issues could not be resolved on the strike-out application and would require a trial.
The case arises from a search warrant issued by the District Court on 18 November 2019 under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. The warrant authorised Detective Garda Christopher O’Sullivan, accompanied by others including Sky’s designated representative David O’Rourke, to search Satworld’s premises at Citylink Business Park, Bluebell, and seize specified material.
Satworld alleges that the handling and retention of its goods went beyond the warrant’s authority and amounted to trespass. Its complaint includes the transport of seized goods to Clondalkin Garda Station in a van arranged by Sky’s commercial partner, Actavo (Ireland) Limited. The judgment records that it appeared to be accepted by all sides that no Garda member was in the van during the journey. Satworld says the goods were handed over without Garda supervision. Sky’s evidence, by contrast, was that O’Rourke travelled in the van and that Garda vehicles escorted it.
The court also considered later handling of devices. Sky employee Damien Gilmore said he collected eight devices from the Garda station in November 2020 and a further 22 in March 2021 for testing, and retained them at Garda request. The judge said the legal basis and limits of transferring evidence to a private company, including how long it may be kept, had not been established by the authorities cited on the application.
Sky sought dismissal both because the pleadings allegedly disclosed no reasonable cause of action and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction for cases bound to fail. Justice Stack rejected both grounds. She said Satworld had pleaded a recognised claim that goods were seized or retained beyond lawful authority. She also found factual questions remained about the defendants’ control and direction by Gardaí, custody of the goods, and whether the warrant or general law authorised their handling and continued retention.
The ruling leaves those questions for trial. It does not establish that Satworld owns the goods, determine whether any defendant is liable, or order the goods returned or damages paid. The judgment notes that no prosecution had been brought against Satworld by the hearing of Sky’s application.