The High Court will decide on Wednesday morning whether or not to jail or fine three anti-water charge protesters for contempt of court.
The company installing water meters, GMC Sierra, claimed four men breached a court order preventing them from coming within 20 metres of its work stations and from interfering with the entrance and exit of the company's vehicles.
The company's application against one man was struck out after the judge found he had not been properly served with the necessary legal documentation to attach and commit him.
Lawyers for GMC Sierra said video evidence and oral evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the three men had breached the order in Dublin 13 on 11 November.
Lawyers for the men said the company had not properly authenticated the video evidence.
The protesters deny they were involved in any unlawful behaviour.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said he will give his decision on Wednesday on whether or not the men breached the order and what sanctions, if any, should apply.
Gardaí caught in 'Catch 22' situation
Meanwhile, a Garda Chief Superintendent has told the High Court that gardaí are caught in a "Catch 22" situation when it comes to policing the anti-water charge protests.
Chief Superintendent Fergus Healy said this is because they cannot apply the Public Order Act within the barriers surrounding a work station.
Chief Supt Healy told the court they had taken legal advice in relation to these issues.
The advice was that the area inside the barriers surrounding a work station where water meters are being installed is not covered by the Public Order Act, as it is deemed not to be a public area.
Chief Supt Healy said the act applies only outside the barrier.
He said this was a civil dispute between the company and the protesters and they were dependent on water service legislation.
Chief Supt Healy said there was an offence under water legislation of interfering with a water meter installer.
He said gardaí had been issued instructions about people interfering with contractors, but he did not tell the court what those instructions are.