In the Netherlands, this is subject to restrictions. Even if one party is ordered to pay the "full" costs, this will generally be capped (except in cases of frivolous litigation). Mostly, though, compensation for costs is limited to "reasonable" costs, and then usually according to a formula based on the work performed and the interests at stake or the complexity of the case.The American Rule, briefly, is that (absent a statute, rule, or contractual provision stating otherwise) each side in the litigation has to pay for their own attorney's fees and their own costs. In many other countries, this isn't the default- the default, instead, is the so-called, "Winner Winner Chicken Dinner Rule," which is that the prevailing party in litigation has their fees and costs paid by the loser. #Winner #IsCharlieSheenStillAlive?
In the US also. One of the most nototious "copyright trolls" has been censured for many things, including inflating the costs of his services. I don't think that he currently has a license anywhere, anymore.In the Netherlands, this is subject to restrictions. Even if one party is ordered to pay the "full" costs, this will generally be capped (except in cases of frivolous litigation). Mostly, though, compensation for costs is limited to "reasonable" costs, and then usually according to a formula based on the work performed and the interests at stake or the complexity of the case.
In the Netherlands, this is subject to restrictions. Even if one party is ordered to pay the "full" costs, this will generally be capped (except in cases of frivolous litigation). Mostly, though, compensation for costs is limited to "reasonable" costs, and then usually according to a formula based on the work performed and the interests at stake or the complexity of the case.