evidence it was Manny who orchestrated the scheme to deceive
 The fraud and gross misconduct on the part of the non-party must relate to conduct during the litigation for the costs to
be awarded against the non-party. Findings of this court are
replete with acts relating to Manny Marcos’ gross misconduct
during the litigation for the purposes of advancing the claim.
Manny Marcos’ conduct amounted to an abuse of the process
beyond the purported subject matter in the litigation. The action
was of a construction company claiming for its work. The misconduct of Manny Marcos, as this court has found, was deliberate
in an attempt to justify and falsely support an inflated claim outside the scope of the agreement between the parties.
 On the submission regarding lack of notice for the claim
of costs personally against the non-parties, the full extent of the
deceitful conduct of Manny Marcos, and abuse of the court’s
process, could not be fully assessed by the defendants until the
decision of the court following trial was rendered. Clearly proper
notice of a costs claim against a non-party must be given. In the
context of this case, the written submissions on costs from
the defendants provided notice following the decision. Both
Manny and Joe Marcos were given the opportunity to respond
on the defendants’ costs submissions in writing. Having regard
to all the circumstances sufficient notice was provided and the
non-party litigants were given a fair opportunity to respond to
 In the result, therefore, the costs award, as noted above in
the sum of $578,793.29 as full indemnity, is payable by the plaintiff and Manny Marcos, jointly and severally.
 Joe Marcos asks for costs of his costs’ submissions. Having
regard to the findings in the decision regarding the dishonesty of
Joe Marcos as a witness, his claim for costs is dismissed. Although
his conduct did not rise to the level of the egregious conduct of
Manny Marcos, the perpetrator of the deceit in the litigation, Joe
Marcos on his own evidence was involved in the operation of the
plaintiff corporation. He was not merely a witness. The claim of
costs against him personally was reasonably advanced.
 No costs are awarded either in favour of or against Joe