4 ms·
Loser pays a proportion of the winner's costs equal to the loser's costs (i.e. loser spends £100 in legal fees, winner spends £1500 in legal fees, loser has to
by hythloday 15y ago
Loser pays a proportion of the winner's costs equal to the loser's costs (i.e. loser spends £100 in legal fees, winner spends £1500 in legal fees, loser has to pay £100 of the winner's costs, leaving the winner with £1400 to pay) has some nice properties.
- mokus 15y agoEven better - loser pays the winner the exact amount they paid their legal team. By their own admission "at arm's length" so to speak, that was the value of the litigation to them.
- hythloday 15y agoThanks, that's a better way of phrasing what I meant. :)
- Tichy 15y agoUm, wouldn't that enable people to ruin people's lives at will? Just sue them over and over. Even if the claims have no merits, eventually they will be bankrupt.
- maxerickson 15y agoI think part of the idea is that if you sue someone and nothing comes of it, you have to pay their fees.
- Tichy 15y agoIsn't that the status quo? The suggestion I replied to was to make the loser only pay part of the winner's fees.
- maxerickson 15y agoMy understanding is that (in the U.S.,) the defendant generally doesn't recover any expenses. But I'm not a lawyer and all that. I guess they can counter sue, and courts generally don't tolerate people filing tons of frivolous lawsuits.