The Defendant sought a determination regarding Costs following his success in defeating the Plaintiff’s Application to consolidate two Actions: an unjust enrichment Action between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s son, and the Plaintiff’s divorce proceedings with the Defendant. The Plaintiff had served notice of the Application to consolidate the Actions on only the son, and not on the Defendant. The Plaintiff opposed any Costs Award sought by the Defendant on the grounds that she had never served the Defendant with the Application to consolidate. Justice Lema rejected that argument, as the Defendant should have received notice of the Application to consolidate pursuant to Rule 6.3, which instructs that notice shall be given to all parties affected. As a result, Costs were awarded to the Defendant.