The Plaintiff Appellants commenced an Action against the Defendant Respondents for investment mismanagement and unauthorized trading. The Appellants filed three Applications to amend their pleadings, one of which was to add a Party who was not previously named as a Defendant, Mr. Horback. The amendment to add Mr. Horback was resisted and the Appellants removed those portions which were objected to, but Mr. Horback sought costs for the Amendment Application nonetheless. The Costs Application and an Application for further document production by the Appellants were heard by a Master and subsequently by the Case Management Judge. The Case Management Judge denied the Application for further production, and held that Mr. Horback was entitled to Costs. The Appellants appealed further. The Court of Appeal held that the Case Management Judge did not err in the Decision not to order any further document production. The Court of Appeal further held that the Costs award, while not one that the Court of Appeal would have made, was a proper exercise of the Case Management Judge’s discretion since the additional amendments to the Statement of Claim were unnecessary. The Court did not consider the Rule at length, but noted in obiter that, even if Mr. Horback was never served for “strategic reasons”, he was a “party” pursuant to Rule 10.28 and was therefore entitled to Costs. The Appeal was dismissed.