Costs — leave to adduce further evidence — indemnity costs — removal of evidence from court file — District Court Rules 2014, r 14.6 — Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] NZCA 234 — Spicer v Boulcott Development Group Ltd [2012] NZHC 906. The Court had previously declined the respondents' application for leave to adduce further evidence. Its reasons for doing so included that the proposed evidence should have been adduced earlier, that allowing the evidence would cause significant prejudice to the applicant, and that to introduce the evidence would not be in the interests of justice. The applicant now sought indemnity costs of $9840.62. She also wanted the proposed affidavit evidence removed from the court file. The respondents argued that indemnity costs should only be awarded in exceptional circumstances, which did not exist here. They also argued that the amount claimed was unreasonably high, and any costs award should be made at scale. The Court found that indemnity costs should be awarded, given the failure of the respondents to comply with timetabling and the likelihood that they had deliberately failed to adduce the evidence on time. The Court awarded the applicant indemnity costs of two thirds of the actual costs that she incurred, and also ordered that the affidavits be removed from the court file. Judgment Date: 9 October 2023