Costs – Order for costs. In earlier proceedings the claimants had been awarded damages against the defendant proprietor of three newspapers for the infringements of privacy rights based on phone hacking, private investigators and publication of articles in the defendant's newspapers. They sought indemnity costs relying on CPR Pt 36 offers, which had not been accepted and on the defendant's alleged unreasonable conduct in the litigation. The Chancery Division dismissed the applications. The Pt 36 offer by one defendant had lost much of its significance as a result of its withdrawal and a 'Calderbank' offer in respect of the other defendant was weaker by having never been a Pt 36 offer. The defendant's conduct had not been so unreasonable as to warrant the making of an indemnity costs order.