The plaintiffs obtained interim injunctions ex parte against the defendants, who allegedly operated an unauthorized IPTV service.
The interim orders included Anton Piller-like and Mareva-like provisions.
The defendants sought to have the interim orders set aside, arguing that the requirements for such orders were not met and that hearsay evidence from a confidential source should be struck.
The court found that the interim orders were executed properly, that the evidence was admissible and sufficient, and that there was a strong prima facie case, serious harm, and a real risk of dissipation of assets and destruction of evidence.
The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motions, converted the interim injunction into an interlocutory injunction, and issued a show cause order for contempt of court against the defendants for failing to comply with the interim orders.
