Application for costs — indemnity costs — scale costs — preparation costs — disbursements — whether costs should be limited — Calderbank offer — lack of arguable case — second counsel costs — hearing that did not proceed — expert fees — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2, 14.6, 14.12 & 16 — Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] NZCA 234 — Tao v Strata Title Administration Ltd [2016] NZHC 1821 — Nomai Holdings Ltd v Elders Pastoral Holdings Ltd (2001) 15 PRNZ 155 (HC) — Gauld v Waimakariri District Council [2014] NZHC 956. This application for costs, follows an earlier finding for the defendant on liability relating to all of the plaintiff's causes of action. The defendant sought indemnity costs, increased costs, second counsel costs, preparatory time (including for a hearing that did not succeed), and costs for a seven day hearing and disbursements. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs who submitted that the defendants were entitled to costs assessed on a 2B basis but that costs should be strictly limited. The court began by setting out the law as it related to each of the claimed costs, and what was required to meet the threshold for each. The court found that it was inappropriate to award indemnity costs as there was no flagrant misconduct by the plaintiffs and no "truly exceptional circumstances". Regarding the defendants' claim for increased costs, two offers to settle had been made by the defendants. Increased costs of 40 per cent were awarded as it was found that, had the plaintiffs "prudently reviewed the evidence" on the issue at the liability hearing, gaps in the witness' memory would have been revealed; accepting the second proposed Calderbank offer would have put the plaintiffs in a far better position than was achieved at the hearing. The court considered the question of which of the scheduled costs claimed by the defendant should be awarded, finding that it was appropriate to award costs for the defence actually advanced at the hearing, 50 per cent of the fee charged for a boundary survey, costs of reasonable witness fees and expenses, and costs of experts required as disbursements. The Judge noted however, that disbursements for witnesses' fees claimed for days above the actual hearing time are not claimable for costs. Disbursements relating to expert witnesses were found to be not reasonably charged and the Judge invited counsel to confer on the calculation of a reasonable period of time for the charged fees. Considering the claims for costs for the hearing which did not proceed, the Judge accepted the plaintiffs' submission that when a liability only hearing was agreed, it was never contemplated that a full seven day hearing would then be conducted after the liability hearing was completed. The defendants' preparation costs incurred up to the point at which they ought to have known that the seven days would not be required, were allowed. The plaintiffs' claim that scale costs ought to be limited was rejected; the Judge noted that steps claimed for by the defendants were incurred as part of the proceeding. The Judge left it to counsel to settle quantum in line with the judgment and granted leave to refer matters back by teleconference if required. Judgment Date: 27 November 2017.