GILES & HAIDAR

In *Giles & Haidar*, the applicant sought costs from the respondent following a hearing that was scheduled to determine when a de facto relationship ended. Both parties had prepared for the hearing, filing evidence and arranging for witnesses. However, on the day of the hearing, the respondent conceded the central issue.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent was wholly unsuccessful, thereby entitling the applicant to an order for costs. This involved considering the timing of the respondent's concession and its impact on the applicant's expenditure of time, energy, and money.

Judge Vasta reasoned that the respondent's concession, made at the "door of the Court," meant that the applicant had been put to unnecessary expense. The Court found that the concession should have been made significantly earlier, thereby avoiding the substantial costs incurred by the applicant in preparing for a hearing that ultimately did not proceed on its merits. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs fixed in the sum of $12,000.