Paul Winalski wrote:Yes. In the US, the defendant in a suit that's dismissed as being of no merit can petition the court to be awarded legal costs, but it's less commonly done than in Britain.
It is done as a matter of course in Canada - I just had one where the losing party paid the winners' court costs, in this case $32,500
The problem comes when an indigent plaintiff (somehow a high percentage of the nut cases that start actions that are frivolous turn out to be indigent) starts up an action. The Rules of Court allow one to apply for security for costs, in other words an order that the plaintiff not be allowed to proceed until they post some sort of bond ensuring that if they lose they will be able to pay costs.
If the plaintiff is a regular person like you or me, the order will go as a matter of course if the applicant can show that there is any doubt that costs will be paid. In the case of the indigent nut case, however, judges often bend over backwards to allow the case to proceed as to do otherwise would in effect prevent the plaintiff from receiving theoretical justice, just because he is poor and that is perceived as a BAD THING, at least by the newspapers (I admit that I have qualms as well - there are some people with quite valid claims that would be prevented from pursuing them if they were ordered to pay security for costs).
The net effect is that the nut case usually gets one or two kicks at the can before it is apparent that he is not a serious litigant - that's when you need the order to prevent any further cases being started without a judge vetting them first.
I view litigation as a singularly poor pastime and would recommend just about any other form of amusement, but that's just me - some people seem to thrive on it.