Reserved judgment — costs — indemnity costs — scale costs — increased costs — service of notices — appropriate costs category — Public Works Act 1981, s 111 — State Sector Act 1988, s 28 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.1, 14.2, 14.4, 14.6 & Sch 4 — Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] NZCA 234 — Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248 — Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2014] NZCA 348 — Pengellys Marketing Ltd & Anors v Attorney-General [2000] 3 NZLR 198 — Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys Pty Ltd (2005) 17 PRNZ 897 — Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2014] NZCA 348. The Court had previously found for the plaintiffs in these proceedings, relating to the route of proposed new roading. In the current hearing, the plaintiffs sought an award of indemnity costs to recover some of what they had spent on the matter. They submitted that the defendant had acted improperly and/or unnecessarily, and had needlessly prolonged the proceedings. The plaintiffs further argued that the defendant had had little or no prospect of success at court. The defendant denied having done anything that would justify an award of indemnity costs against it. The Court's previous ruling had turned partly on a point that was not a feature of the plaintiff's case at the start of the hearing. The Court itself had raised the point during the defendant's oral submissions. Another reason for the Court's decision was its finding that the defendant had not taken care to be properly informed before notifying the plaintiffs of its intention to enter their property. However the Court had had to hear all of the evidence before reaching this conclusion. The defendant's case had not been hopeless, and had not been brought vexatiously or improperly. The claim for indemnity costs was not made out. However the plaintiff still sought scale costs on a 3C basis. The Court agreed that given the length and complexity of the proceedings costs were to be awarded on a mixture of 3B and 3C bases, for different matters that the plaintiffs had undertaken during proceedings. The Court awarded the plaintiffs costs amounting to $71,757, and found no reason to increase the amount of costs awarded. Judgment Date: 19 August 2022