A self-represented litigant who persists with interlocutory applications after being warned they are misconceived may be ordered to pay indemnity costs from the date of the warning, even though the initial filing may be excused on account of lack of legal expertise. The date of a warning letter from the opposing party foreshadowing an indemnity costs application may serve as the temporal dividing line between ordinary and indemnity costs.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.