The High Court has ordered a firefighter to pay Louth County Council’s costs of an unsuccessful application to prevent a promotion in the Louth Fire Service. Execution of the costs order is stayed until the final disposal of his action, which the court said he remains free to pursue.
Mr Justice Allen delivered the costs ruling on 21 August 2020, after refusing the interlocutory injunction on 30 June. The plaintiff had sought to stop the council filling a sub-officer position from a promotion panel that did not include him.
The panel followed a September 2019 competition involving eight applicants, of whom four were selected. The firefighter appealed against his exclusion, arguing that the interview board departed from its marking scheme. His administrative appeal was rejected on 18 March 2020. His court action challenged the appeal decision, including on the basis that the person who considered it had spoken to the interview board’s chairman.
The council sought the costs of the two-day injunction motion. The plaintiff argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge or made costs in the cause, and alternatively sought a stay on execution. He also said the council’s refusal to give an undertaking not to make promotions had left him with no option but to apply. The judge said the refusal had been vindicated: the plaintiff could have applied for an injunction or accepted the council’s position, and had made the wrong choice.
The judge found that the facts relevant to the motion were established and unlikely to change at trial. He was not satisfied that the plaintiff had shown a fair issue to be tried, still less a strong case, for a permanent injunction. The defendant had succeeded entirely in opposing the motion, and the judge found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful defendant should receive its costs. The position the plaintiff had sought to keep open had by then been filled, so the injunction issue would not be revisited.
The costs ruling did not dismiss the underlying action. The judge said the plaintiff remained at liberty to pursue claims for a declaration and damages. He considered that a stay on execution of interlocutory costs could protect against the risk of such an order stifling an action. The resulting order requires the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the motion, with execution stayed pending final disposal of the action.