Decision on costs — summary judgment — District Court Rules 2014, rr 7.69, 14.8 — pretrial — Calderbank Offer. The background to the decision is that the second and third defendants applied for summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The claim was dismissed and the Judge reserved leave for the plaintiffs to apply for costs. The second and third defendants then appealed that decision to the High Court, which was also dismissed in favour of the plaintiffs in this case. Costs were awarded at the High Court but no comment was made by Justice Venning as to the appropriateness of an award of costs in the District Court. The plaintiffs then sought costs in the present District Court case on the basis that counsel for the second and third defendants also practices from the third defendant legal firm, submitting that it was unlikely that it had incurred any actual costs in bringing the proceeding. However, the Judge pointed to District Court Rules 2014, r 14.8 noting that the usual course on the resolution of summary judgment proceedings is to reserve costs pending the determination of the substantive proceeding, and reserved the application pending resolution of the substantive matter. The second and third defendants also sought costs on the basis that a request by the plaintiffs for directions in relation to filing an amended statement of claim meant that an original application by the second and third defendants for further and better particulars was successful. Referencing r 7.69, the Judge did not accept that proposition, dismissing the second and third defendants' application for costs. The second and third defendants further relied upon a "Calderbank" offer. But awarding costs at this stage was also deemed inappropriate; it was unknown what, if any, amount the plaintiffs might recover against the defendants. Judgment Date: 17 January 2018.