|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
This is not only "possible", it is normal.
Let's assume the defendant offered to settle for a shilling. Such an order would
then follow pretty much automatically - the plaintiff, in refusing the offer,
has caused extra cost to the defendant for no added benefit to the plaintiff.
A similar case (which I couldn't find on Wikipedia last time I looked) was the
Lord Archer vs the torygraph. The torygraph offered to settle the libel suit for
a quarter mill. The jury concluded that Lord Archer's reputation had been
damaged, but he had no reputation to lose, so they awarded him 1p. The Judge
then added insult to injury by awarding the torygraph's costs to him as well.
But it's standard UK practice that if you try to settle, and the other side
don't accept the settlement and come off worse, then they get to pay your costs
on top.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Eggsackerly - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Eggsackerly - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Eggsackerly - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT
|
|
|
|