Order awarding costs for interlocutory injunction in employment proceedings is overturned

Haughton J (nem diss): Appeal of a decision to award the respondent the costs of an interlocutory injunction application - costs of legal proceedings - employment law - various allegations were made by the appellant who was the general manager of a hotel employed by the respondent - an independent person was appointed to investigate the allegations who found that the respondent had engaged in behaviour that contravened the appellant’s Disciplinary Code which amounted to gross misconduct and recommended that the appellant take such disciplinary decisions as might appear appropriate - the respondent was not paid his salary that was due on the 3rd May 2017 - various correspondence between the parties where the respondent expressed concerns about the investigation and indicated that he would seek immediate injunctive relief if not paid his salary - appellant undertook to pay the respondent's salary pending the determination of the disciplinary process but stood over the report - respondent issued plenary summons and sought various injunctive reliefs - appellant offered undertakings to continue to pay his salary, not to conduct the disciplinary investigation and/or procedure against the respondent other than in accordance with his legal and contractual entitlements and his right to fair procedures and, not to rely on the purported findings of the disciplinary investigation into the respondent’s alleged misconduct and/or the investigator's report - the trial judge awarded the respondent the costs of the application on the basis that the application had to be brought, that the defendant was given an adequate opportunity to avoid the necessity of bringing the proceedings and on the basis that the undertakings given amounted to a success for the respondent on foot of the motion - Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether there had been an "event" for the purposes of costs at the interlocutory hearing - whether the Court should revisit the trial judge’s findings in relation to the correspondence, and in particular her finding that the appellant was given adequate opportunity to furnish undertakings, and that the failure to give these promptly, or earlier than they were given, meant that the consensual order based on the undertakings was a success for the respondent - Hay v. O'Grady - whether the relevant findings of the trial judge in relation to the correspondence were supported by the evidence - as there was no determination by the trial judge of the interlocutory application, the requirement that costs follow the event did not arise and the general discretion as to costs applied - appeal allowed - order for costs substituted for no order as to costs.