33 Finally, at the very end of his oral submissions, the applicant advanced a further argument which was not raised in his grounds of appeal or written submissions before this Court, but which had been raised before Wood AsJ (but was not addressed in his Honour's reasons), that the bills of costs which he had been given by the respondents were not signed by the solicitors for the respondents. Thus there was no basis, it was said, for the Costs Judge to presume the accuracy of the items in any of the bills. He asserted that the respondents' solicitors should have produced invoices and other indicia of payment to verify that the costs claimed had in fact been incurred. That argument must also be rejected. It was not made clear that the applicant raised this argument before Beach J as a ground upon which the Costs Judge's decision should be reviewed. Even assuming that the bill given to the respondents was not signed, the Rules do not require that a bill of costs for taxation prepared pursuant to an order that one party pay the taxed costs of another party be signed. The requirements as to the contents of a bill of costs for taxation under r 63.42 of the Rules do not include a requirement that the bill be signed. The relevant statutory provisions[40] governing the institution of a proceeding by a law practice or a legal practitioner for the recovery of costs from a client require that the 'bill' be signed, but those provisions do not relate to a bill of costs for taxation prepared pursuant to an order that one party pay the other party's taxed costs.