Description
A court awarded costs of a summary judgment on an indemnity basis as allegations of unconscionability had only come to light in a party's skeleton arguments, and there had been unparticularised serious allegations of fraud.
The question for the court was whether H's conduct took the case out of the norm and therefore warranted the court's disapproval by way of an order for indemnity costs. It was only through H's skeleton arguments that it became apparent that there were arguments on unconscionability alleging that B had been guilty of sharp practice; although not as derogatory as the allegations of fraud, that was still an unexpected and new point.
