No, if you win you should be compensated for your legal fees because the idea is you weren’t in the wrong and therefore shouldn’t have had to sue, or shouldn’t have been sued. So the loser pays the fees, because they shouldn’t have sued, or they should have settled before it became a lawsuit that they lost.
If you’re big you can’t drown smaller companies, and if you’re small and you’re likely to win, you can go after the big companies for your dues because they’ll have to compensate you for the legal fees so it doesn’t bankrupt you.
In the US legal fees aren’t considered, you have to countersue if you want the legal fees back AFAIK. Not a lawyer.
They’re australians, so loser pays the other’s legal fees.
Maybe there’d be less frivolous lawsuits in the US if it worked the same, it makes it so you can’t just sue someone to make them go bankrupt.
Do you mean winner? I believe in the states it also loser pays.
No, if you win you should be compensated for your legal fees because the idea is you weren’t in the wrong and therefore shouldn’t have had to sue, or shouldn’t have been sued. So the loser pays the fees, because they shouldn’t have sued, or they should have settled before it became a lawsuit that they lost.
If you’re big you can’t drown smaller companies, and if you’re small and you’re likely to win, you can go after the big companies for your dues because they’ll have to compensate you for the legal fees so it doesn’t bankrupt you.
In the US legal fees aren’t considered, you have to countersue if you want the legal fees back AFAIK. Not a lawyer.