3 ms·
I believe it's at the judges discretion. There was recently a case against a journalist who paid bribes on behalf of a news corporation in which the judge outri
by jon-wood 11y ago
I believe it's at the judges discretion. There was recently a case against a journalist who paid bribes on behalf of a news corporation in which the judge outright stated that if the corporation had been paying costs he would have ruled for a much larger costs settlement then he did when it emerged the journalist himself was going to have to pay. The remainder gets picked up by the taxpayer, so whatever happens the winning party isn't expected to pay the loser's costs.
- dtparr 11y agoSo in my scenario, the public would finance most of the insurance company's defense if I lost?
- jon-wood 11y agoStandard disclaimer: you should consult an actual solicitor! I think it would somewhat depend on the judge's assessment of the situation, but I would think so long as you're acting in good faith they'd likely rule for you to pay whatever costs you can afford, and the rest would be covered by public finances. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of judges deciding that the defence's legal team is grossly excessive and telling them they're not claiming for everything either, at least in the UK judges have quite a lot of leeway in what they can do in their own court room.