Polley v Johnson (No 2)

In the matter of Polley v Johnson, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs in relation to an interlocutory application made during the proceedings. The applicant, Polley, sought an order that costs should follow the event, specifically in relation to an interlocutory application. Johnson, the respondent, opposed this application and argued that the costs order should be made separately from the order in respect of the costs of the proceedings as a whole. The dispute centred on whether the court should make a specific costs order reflecting the outcome of the interlocutory application, or whether it should await the conclusion of the entire proceedings to make a final costs order.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the principles governing costs orders in interlocutory applications. The court had to consider whether it was appropriate to make a separate costs order in relation to the interlocutory application, or whether such an order should be deferred until the conclusion of the entire proceedings. The court was also required to examine the relevant authorities and precedents to determine the correct approach to costs orders in such circumstances.

The court determined that it was appropriate to make a separate costs order in relation to the interlocutory application. The court found that the principles governing costs orders in interlocutory applications were distinct from those applicable to the costs of the proceedings as a whole. The court held that making a separate costs order reflected the outcome of the interlocutory application and provided clarity and finality to the parties. The court further held that deferring the costs order until the conclusion of the entire proceedings could lead to uncertainty and potential injustice. The court therefore made an order that costs should follow the event in relation to the interlocutory application.

In light of the court's reasoning, it made an order that costs should follow the event in relation to the interlocutory application. The court held that this approach was consistent with the principles governing costs orders in interlocutory applications and provided a fair and just outcome for the parties. The court further held that making a separate costs order in relation to the interlocutory application was appropriate and did not prejudice the respondent's right to a final costs order at the conclusion of the entire proceedings.