Costs — Arms Act 1983 — District Court Rules 2002, RR 14.1, 14.2, 14.5 & 14.7 — Foote v New Zealand Police [2022] NZHC 1670. The Court had previously ruled on the matter and had indicated that costs should lie where they fell. In the current hearing the respondent sought costs on a 2B basis. The respondent submitted that following amendments to the Arms Act, the outcome of the appeal would be used to develop a best practice on reviewing police decisions on whether to grant gun licenses. The respondent further submitted that Court decisions that costs should lie where they fall would not deter meritless appeals against decisions to decline licenses. The Court stated that it had discretion on whether or not to award costs, per r 14.1 of the District Court Rules, and each appeal had to be dealt with on its merits. As the successful party in the substantive proceedings, the respondent had a legitimate claim for costs. The Court awarded costs for various items claimed, variously on a 1B or 2A basis depending on the complexity of each item and the amount of work it created. Judgment Date: 14 October 2022.