The High Court has extended an injunction requiring Irish internet service providers to block illegal streams of Premier League matches for the 2021/22 season, approving amendments intended to keep the order effective as technology changes.
Mr Justice David Barniville delivered the ruling on 22 June 2021 on an application by The Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL). He also stayed the proceedings until 30 June 2022, with liberty to apply before then to extend the order further.
The application sought to continue an order first made by the High Court on 15 July 2019 and extended in June 2020. The earlier order established a “live blocking injunction”. FAPL sought significant changes, supported by four affidavits and evidence submitted in the previous applications. The judge said the amendments were necessary to prevent operators of illegal streaming services from using technological changes or adaptations to circumvent the order.
The five defendants are Eircom Limited trading as Eir, Sky Ireland Limited, Sky Subscribers Services Limited, Virgin Media Ireland Limited and Vodafone Ireland Limited. The judgment said Eir and Vodafone were neutral on the application and proposed order; the Sky defendants supported the application and did not oppose it; and Virgin Media was neutral on both the application and the order’s terms.
Applying principles from earlier judgments, including a Court of Appeal ruling on blocking injunctions, Mr Justice Barniville considered whether the order was necessary, respected the rights of affected parties and had a reasonable duration and review process. He said the cost and cost-sharing requirements did not arise in this application.
The judge accepted evidence that the extension and amendments were necessary to prevent ongoing illegal streaming and maintain the order’s effectiveness. He said safeguards for the internet service providers included an “emergency brake” allowing suspension in certain circumstances and a provision allowing defendants and others to apply to vary or discharge the order.
On the impact on internet users, the judge considered the risk of “over-blocking”—restricting legitimate use—and concluded it was minimised, with no real or substantial risk from continuing and amending the order. He found the one-year extension and review period reasonable, and made the order in the terms of FAPL’s draft, with liberty to apply.