Child Support — costs — indemnity costs — Child Support Act 1991, s 232 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 207 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 & 14.6 — Turner v Turner [2023] NZFC 1794 — Van Selm v Van Selm [2015] NZHC 641 — Bowden v Bowden [2017] NZHC 1841 — R v S [Guardianship] [2004] NZFLR 207; (2003) 22 FRNZ 1017 — S v I (2009) 28 FRNZ 13 (HC) — 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 — Glaister v Amalgamated Dairies Ltd (2004) 16 PRNZ 1074 (CA) — Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys Pty Ltd (2005) 17 PRNZ 897 (CA). The parties had been engaged in child support proceedings, and the respondent mother was seeking costs against the applicant father after all of his claims were dismissed. The respondent applied for costs on a 2B basis, and additionally indemnity costs or at the least, uplift costs. The respondent's basis was that the applicant's claims were all unmeritorious, he had failed to comply with directions from the Court, and he had submitted irrelevant evidence. The applicant opposed costs being awarded, submitting that the Court had found that the respondent owed him money but did not have jurisdiction to order her to repay, and therefore it would be morally repugnant to order him to pay costs. The Court accepted the respondent's submissions that the applicant's applications were contradictory and unmeritorious, but was not satisfied that he was in a financial position to pay indemnity costs. Instead, the Court ordered costs on a 2B basis of $6,303 and uplifted by 50 per cent to $9,454.50. Judgment Date: 9 April 2024