Costs — application for further provision — Family Protection Act 1955 — Evidence Act 2006, ss 7 & 8 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 207 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2, 14.3, 14.5 & 14.6 — Van Selm v Van Selm [2015] NZHC 641, (2015) FRNZ 163 — Bowden v Bowden [2017] NZHC 1841, [2017] NZFLR 910 — R v S [Guardianship] [2004] NZFLR 207; (2003) 22 FRNZ 1017 — S v I (2009) 28 FRNZ 13 — AS v JM [2004] NZFLR 57 — JJF v AJH, FC Christchurch, FAM-2008-009-3326, 13 January 2011 — Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 109, [2013] 1 NZLR 305 — Glaister v Amalgamated Dairies Ltd (2003) 16 PRNZ 840 — Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys Pty Ltd (2005) 17 PRNZ 897 — Talbot v Talbot [2017] NZHC 257 — Bean v Bean (Costs) [2019] NZHC 545 — Hill (Dec’d) [1999] NZFLR 268 — Moleta v Darlow (Costs No. 2) [2022] NZHC 1330 — Re: Wills (Dec’d) [1999] NZFLR 134 — Fry v Fry [2015] NZHC 2716, [2016] NZFLR 2716 — Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd [2007] NZCA 544, (2007) 18 PRNZ 743 — PRDW V JNW [2013] NZFC 627 — S v Y, FAM North Shore, FAM-2007-044-1338, 3 July 2009 — PNJ v CF [2012] NZFC 4545 — Fisher v Kirby [2012] NZCA 310, [2013] NZFLR 463 — Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys Pty Ltd (2005) 17 PRNZ 897. The Court had previously issued a decision dismissing the applicant's claim for further provision from her father's estate. The applicant's siblings, who had opposed her claim, now sought costs on a 2C basis. The applicant conceded that she was liable for costs, but argued that they should only be payable on a 2B basis and in accordance with scale costs. The Court observed that much of the applicant's affidavits and evidence in the proceedings had been "irrelevant", "inflammatory" and "unhelpful." She had refused offers to settle the proceedings, meaning that all parties had incurred extra costs in bringing the matter to court, and had caused other delays. The Court described the applicant's behaviour as "egregious." The Court awarded costs on a 2B basis, except for the costs associated with filing affidavits, which were to be awarded on a 2C basis. The applicant's conduct had not been bad enough to justify an order of indemnity costs against her, but the Court did order a 75 per cent uplift on scale costs. The total costs ordered were $40,611.37. Judgment Date: 6 June 2024 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *