Application for costs — indemnity costs — further provision from will — final distribution of estate — Family Protection Act 1955 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 207 & 384 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2-14.12 — RMJ v BJG [2017] NZHC 2470 — Hawthorne v Cox [2008] NZCA 146 — M v M [2015] NZFC 314 — Fry v Fry [2015] NZHC 2716, [2016] NZFLR 713. This was an application as to costs following a substantive decision relating to the final distribution of an estate. The applicant had been successful in her application against her late mother's estate for further provision under the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA). The respondents in this case were a son of the deceased and a solicitor, acting as executors of the estate, who took no position in their capacity as executors; however, the deceased's son opposed the application in his personal capacity as a beneficiary of the estate. Given the applicant's success in the substantive decision, she sought costs either against the deceased's son or, alternatively, from the estate. Pursuant to the Family Court Rules 2002 (FCR), a court has discretion to grant costs subject to the family law Act under which the proceedings were brought. The FPA does not contain any provision relating to costs; however, the FCR allow for a court to apply rules 14.2-14.12 of the District Court Rules 2014. Relevant case law provides guidelines for the relevant things a court can take into consideration, such as the outcome and complexity of the proceedings, parties' and counsel's conduct, the means of each party, actual costs incurred and overall justice. Given that: the applicant had been successful in her claim against the estate; the legal issues were reasonably complex as they involved questions around distribution of company shares; and that there had been an application to the High Court by the applicant's brother regarding the trust and the applicant's legal costs amounted to half of the sum paid to the applicant from the estate, the Judge determined that it was appropriate to grant costs in favour of the applicant. The Judge considered that the award of costs should be split equally against the respondent and the estate, and made orders accordingly. Judgment Date: 19 May 2020.