Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:44 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Permalink for comment 385280
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-09-14
That is true in the US as well. However, in the US at least the lawyers still need to be paid first before they will take the case. Basically when the losing party has to pay for legal costs, it is more of a reimbursement to the winner. The money and time are already spent, so without having the money up front to pay for the lawyers, they will not touch the case unless it is a sure victory.
How is that true in the US? I was under the impression it'd have to explicitly be part of the judgment for that to happen, or you have to separately sue for court costs. As an example, the RIAA lawsuits that were dropped when they realized they had the wrong person or were going to lose typically left the loser footing the legal bill of defending themselves up to that point.