Background
Michelle Keane sought an injunction against The Journal Media Limited, trading as TheJournal.ie, and three other defendants: DML Capital Unlimited Company, Brian Fallon and Eamonn Fallon. In a judgment delivered on 9 September 2026, the High Court refused the application because Keane had not met the standard required for the far-reaching relief sought. The Court also found that she had failed to articulate a basis for suing at least three of the defendants.
The earlier judgment provisionally indicated that the defendants should receive their costs on the standard party-and-party basis. Keane accepted that her application had failed and that costs ordinarily follow the event, but asked the Court instead to make no costs order, reserve the costs as costs in the cause, or award only one set of reasonable costs to the first defendant.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Kennedy ordered Keane to pay the defendants’ costs of the unsuccessful injunction application on a party-and-party basis. Under Order 99, rule 2(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the Court could determine costs when disposing of the interlocutory application, and no reason had been shown to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The application had no established basis for succeeding, so its costs should not depend on the outcome of any later trial, even if Keane ultimately prevailed on a properly particularised claim against appropriate defendants.
The Court also rejected the request to limit recovery to a single set of costs for the first defendant. Keane had named all four defendants and required each to resist a serious application, so each was entitled to costs. Their use of a shared legal team might reduce the total expense, but the reasonable amount recoverable was for agreement or formal costs adjudication. The Court did not award costs on a higher scale.
Key Takeaways
- An unsuccessful interlocutory application may attract an immediate costs order when liability for those costs can justly be determined without awaiting trial.
- A plaintiff’s failure to state a coherent basis for joining particular defendants does not justify denying those defendants the costs incurred in resisting the application.
- Shared legal representation may affect the amount recoverable, but it does not eliminate each successful defendant’s entitlement to reasonable party-and-party costs.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores the costs risk of seeking far-reaching interlocutory relief, particularly in defamation proceedings involving multiple defendants. A claimant cannot ordinarily postpone or avoid those costs merely because the underlying action may continue, and joining parties without a coherent basis may increase rather than reduce potential costs exposure.