We agree costs should follow the event. Having succeeded, the second to fifth [9] respondents are entitled to an award of costs in their favour. We accept however the submissions for the appellant that a discount is appropriate to reflect the fact other participants largely had the carriage of the hearing before us. An award of $15,000 is appropriate. We add that the exact basis of Mr Francois’ engagement is unclear. Rule 14.2(1)(f) of the High Court Rules 2016 provides that a costs award “should not exceed the costs incurred”.5 In these circumstances, in order to establish there were actual costs incurred and what those costs were, we consider it appropriate to direct that invoices be provided to the Registrar. Finally, we note that a memorandum has been filed by counsel who was [10] instructed to represent Mr Taylor in the Court of Appeal. Counsel advises that Mr Taylor was in receipt of legal aid for part of the proceedings in that Court. The Court of Appeal made no award of costs to Mr Taylor.6 Any issue as to costs for Mr Taylor in the Court of Appeal are to be dealt with by that Court. Result [11] We make the following orders: (a) The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements. (b) The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar. (c) Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court. Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant Amicus Law, Auckland for Second to Fifth Respondents Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Intervener 5 6 McGuire, above n 2, at [66] and [82]–[83]; and see for example Karmarkar v Manda [2018] NZHC 2081 at [19]–[20]. Attorney-General v Taylor [2017] NZCA 215, [2017] 3 NZLR 24.