The High Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs of an interlocutory application, but stayed that costs order pending the outcome of the substantive action. It also restrained the defendants from pursuing an investigation into matters raised in a solicitors’ letter, implementing a board decision to suspend the plaintiff, or taking steps to terminate his employment arising from those matters.
Ms Justice Butler delivered the ruling on 29 July 2021, following her 8 July judgment granting interlocutory relief. She said the plaintiff had succeeded in obtaining relief against steps to advance an investigation and against dismissal on grounds referred to in the letter. The defendants argued that disputed facts still to be determined at trial meant costs should be reserved or made costs in the cause.
The judge found that the disputed circumstances of a €14,000 payment to the plaintiff and what happened at a meeting on 23 April remained unresolved. But she said those disputes were not central to the grounds on which the injunction had been granted: that the company appeared to be pursuing an investigation into a matter on which it had already reached conclusions, and that a decision to suspend the plaintiff had been taken at a board meeting without prior notice to him. She said those issues rested on documents from the defendants and were not likely to be revisited at trial in the same way as the disputed underlying events.
The judge accepted that the costs order should be stayed because the parties had an ongoing working relationship and litigation remained in progress. The stay would allow the defendants to set off the costs if they succeeded at trial.
The court restrained the defendants from investigating matters raised in the 26 April 2021 letter, giving effect to the 28 April board resolution or suspension decision, publishing matters concerning alleged wrongdoing referred to in the letter, or taking steps to terminate the plaintiff’s employment arising from those matters. The restraints also applied to the defendants’ servants and agents. The court did not impose a general restraint on steps to terminate the employment.
The judge made no formal order to facilitate the plaintiff’s return to work, saying it appeared he had returned on 19 July and that the return had been facilitated. She gave the parties liberty to apply if a difficulty arose concerning his return to or continued work.
The plaintiff was directed to deliver a statement of claim by close of business on 6 August 2021. The injunction would lapse if he failed to do so. The court made no further directions for the substantive action at that stage.