Johnson McKenzie v First Greater Western Limited

Where an application for interim relief is refused, the general rule is that costs follow the event. That rule applies even where the court declines to determine the underlying merits and instead considers that the dispute should be addressed in another forum or process. A party’s reasonable or good-faith conduct in bringing the application does not, without more, displace the usual costs order. A party who applies to amend is generally liable for the costs of the amendment, particularly where the other party offered to consent on appropriate no-costs terms and the offer was rejected.

The claimant applied for an interim injunction restraining the defendant from conducting a disciplinary hearing. The application was refused because the High Court should not generally intervene in disciplinary proceedings at that stage; the court considered that the complaints should be addressed through the disciplinary procedure and, if necessary, an appeal or Employment Tribunal proceedings. The claimant also applied to amend the defendant’s name. The amendment was unopposed, but the parties disagreed about the wording of a proposed consent order and the costs consequences.

The issue was whether the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of the substantive interim-relief application and the amendment application, or whether costs should be reserved or otherwise divided.

1. Substantive application. The claimant was the unsuccessful party on the application for interim relief. The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event where an application for interim relief is unsuccessful. The rule applies even where refusal rests on institutional restraint or the identification of another forum as the proper place to resolve the underlying complaints.
2. The fact that the underlying dispute remained unresolved did not alter the costs analysis. The relevant question was the outcome of the application made to the High Court, namely whether it should intervene in the disciplinary process and grant pre-emptive relief. The claimant’s belief that the application had been brought reasonably did not remove liability for costs.
3. The court therefore made no order departing from the general rule in CPR 44.2 (2), and ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of the substantive application.
4. Amendment application. The general rule is that the party applying to amend is liable for the costs of the amendment. Primary responsibility for correctly naming the defendant rested with the claimant and his legal advisers. The correspondence relied upon by the claimant sought an address for service and did not seek clarification of the defendant’s legal identity.
5. The defendant had offered to consent to the amendment on terms including no order as to costs. The claimant rejected the proposed wording and issued a formal application. In those circumstances, there was no reason to depart from the general rule. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the amendment application.
6. Costs were to be assessed if not agreed.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The substantive interim-injunction application was refused in [2026] EWHC 868 (KB). The present judgment determined the costs of that application and the amendment application.