(3) Conduct delaying the trial
 Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 57.01(1)(e) authorizes a trial
judge, in awarding costs, to consider the conduct of any party that
tended to shorten or lengthen unnecessarily the duration of
the proceeding. The trial judge found that the appellants unnecessarily lengthened the trial. In our view, on the evidence before
him the trial judge was entitled to make and rely on that finding.
 We have already recounted the delay that was caused by
the appellants’ attempt to enforce a clearly unenforceable settlement. This was a significant event, on its own sufficient to warrant the reduction in the costs order that occurred.
 The trial judge, having had the benefit of the representations and submissions of counsel and the trial record, was also
entitled to find that the trial was delayed because of the last-minute decision of the appellants to have Ms. Carroll testify. We
do not accept the appellants’ submission that no representation
had been made that Ms. Carroll would not testify. The appellants
conducted themselves as if she would not be called, until the last
minute. She was not on the witness list and was proposed as
a witness for the first time only on the eve of trial. The trial
judge’s decision to permit her to be examined for discovery before
trial was a reasonable one, as was his decision to hold the appellants responsible for the delay that this examination caused.
 Finally, the trial judge was entitled to note that the appellants had paid only lip service to the case management master’s
order. Most notably, the record supports the trial judge’s conclusion that the future care report that was served by the appellants
months late on August 18, 2015 was a new plan contemplating
more vigorous therapy for Ms. Carroll.
 We would not, on this record, give any currency to the
appellants’ submission that since the respondents also failed to
comply strictly with the case management master’s order, it is
unfair to reduce the appellants’ costs because of delay. The trial
judge had more than sufficient reason for reducing the appellants’ costs, as he did.
(4) Conclusions on the costs appeal
 The appellants have not met the test for obtaining leave to
appeal costs. This is not an obvious case where there are strong
grounds for finding that the trial judge erred in exercising his
discretion. We therefore deny leave to appeal the costs order.
The question of who should bear the reduction in the costs
award ordered by the trial judge, counsel or client was not raised