| Popis: |
In jurisdictions employing the English rule, the loser is normally ordered to bear the winner’s costs, but only to the extent that these costs were ‘necessary’ for the attainment of justice. The usual approach to modeling the English rule does not take into account this limitation on fee-shifting, instead assuming that any and all costs can be shifted. We identify the conditions under which legal expenditures always decrease as the definition of necessary costs becomes more restrictive. It is also shown that increased uncertainty over the definition of necessary costs can increase or decrease the expenditure of risk neutral litigants. If litigants are uncertain about the amount of damages, rather than liability, then limiting the award of costs has no effect on expenditure. |
Full Text from ScienceDirect