Costs — estate division — reimbursement — claim for costs — Family Protection Act 1955 — District Court Rules 2014 rr, 14.10, 14.11,14.2(1)(a), 14.3, 14.5 14.6, 14.6(3), 14.6(3)(a), 14.6(3)(b)(ii) & 14.6(3)(b)(v) — Family Court Rules 2002 rr, 207 & 297 — Pyke v Sheriff [2017] NZHC 1990 — Fry v Fry [2016] NZFLR 713 — Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys PTY Ltd (2005) 17 PRNZ 897 (CA). In a previous proceeding, the applicant was awarded 10 per cent of his late mother's estate and the second applicant was awarded seven per cent. Their brothers, the respondents and beneficiaries, opposed their claims. In this proceeding, the applicant sought an award of $15,006.01 for costs for the time spent on the previous proceedings and reimbursements. The second applicant did not make a claim in this proceeding. The applicant submitted that the respondents were subject to r 14.2(1)(a), because the respondents failed in the previous proceeding they needed to pay the party who succeeded. The respondents rejected this claim and that costs should lie where they fall. The respondents submitted that the applicant already received recognition, had no economic need, the proceedings already brought up past family matters and they had made a financial offer. The Court found that r 14.(2)(a) did apply. The respondents were each jointly and severally liable but in practice were expected to make a 1/5 contribution for the costs from their share of the estate. The costs were uplifted to $14,604.91 because of the extensive preparation for the case and the proceedings played a part in their relationship conflict. Judgment Date: 7 August 2024 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *