Patrick McFadden v Muckno Hotels Ltd (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 110 (22 April 2020)

Patrick McFadden v Muckno Hotels Ltd (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 110 (22 April 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in awarding costs to the plaintiff/respondent. The respondent did not seek specific undertakings in advance of the interlocutory application, and the undertakings given by the appellant were offered promptly after the application was issued. There was no determination of the interlocutory application by the court, and the circumstances did not justify an award of costs to the respondent. The appeal was allowed and the order for costs set aside, with no order as to costs of the interlocutory application.

Citation
[2020] IECA 110
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Patrick McFadden; Defendant/appellant: Muckno Hotels Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Costs Order After Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order for costs set aside; no order as to costs of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
Costs of Interlocutory Applications, Injunctions, Employment Disciplinary Procedures, Judicial Discretion on Costs
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs of Interlocutory Applications Injunctions Employment Disciplinary Procedures Judicial Discretion on Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick McFadden

Plaintiff/respondent

Muckno Hotels Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Costs Order After Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding the plaintiff/respondent costs of the interlocutory injunction application where undertakings were given by the defendant/appellant before a hearing
  2. 2 Whether it was necessary or reasonable for the plaintiff/respondent to bring the interlocutory application in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the giving of undertakings by the defendant/appellant constituted a 'success' or 'event' entitling the plaintiff/respondent to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in awarding costs to the plaintiff/respondent. The respondent did not seek specific undertakings in advance of the interlocutory application, and the undertakings given by the appellant were offered promptly after the application was issued. There was no determination of the interlocutory application by the court, and the circumstances did not justify an award of costs to the respondent. The appeal was allowed and the order for costs set aside, with no order as to costs of the interlocutory application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order for costs set aside; no order as to costs of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • Order of Costello J. awarding costs to the plaintiff/respondent set aside.
  • No order as to costs of the interlocutory application.