[2005] EWHC 2174 (TCC), 10 October 2005. In 2002 the roof of a retail unit collapsed, causing considerable damage. The unit had been constructed by W; the roof had been designed by H, a firm of architects. In June 2004, W issued Part 20 proceedings against H which it continued until the day of the trial, when it discontinued its claim. H submitted that W's conduct throughout had been so unreasonable that the court should assess H's costs on a indemnity basis, at least from the time witness statements were exchanged, when it was apparent that W's claim was hopeless. "Held": Even before exchange of witness statements, it should have been apparent to W that it had a weak case. Once these statements had been exchanged, it was clear that W had no case, and it should have then discontinued its claim. From that point, its conduct was so unreasonable that it justified an order for indemnity costs, particularly as an invitation by H to W to withdraw its claim and pay standard costs had been refused.