Can someone explain in plain English what it means.
Basically it ensures that when xenforo wins, Jelsoft will not be able to wriggle out of paying xenforos costs.
Can someone explain in plain English what it means.
Thanks.Security for costs is the money which a claimant has to pay into court, or guarantee he has to give, as a condition of bringing or continuing a claim.
Can someone explain in plain English what it means.
Yes but I would think that since in the UK the case was determined already it is just about waiting for reimbursement within the time the court has allowed. Right?Basically it ensures that when xenforo wins, Jelsoft will not be able to wriggle out of paying xenforos costs.
Security for costs is the money which a claimant has to pay into court, or guarantee he has to give, as a condition of bringing or continuing a claim.
Yes but I would think that since in the UK the case was determined already it is just about waiting for reimbursement within the time the court has allowed. Right?
The US case would have to wait until VBS inc (plaintiff) fails to prove their claims but then generally speaking the judge awards court costs and fees incurred by the defendant be reimbursed by the plaintiff who fails to make a case.
This concerns the English lawsuit, rather than the one in California.Yesterday in London...
an application made on behalf of XenForo Ltd. for security of costs...
In English civil law, the loser of each round of litigation is required to pay the winner's costs, including attorney's fees. The Court must have the power to compel the losing party to do this.The application was made on the grounds that the first claimant, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. has no assets in the UK, having assigned them to the second claimant, vBulletin Solutions Inc. which is not resident within this jurisdiction.
The said they didn't want to.The claimants opposed the application...
We won....was granted by the High Court.
As the application was contested and the matter was heard in Court, costs were involved, and with failure of their opposition, the claimants were ordered to pay the costs incurred by the defendants in making the application....and costs were awarded against them.
The claimants opposed the application and costs were awarded against them.
Mainly, it serves to defeat the SLAPP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
I mean that I was under the impression that the case in the UK has already had a ruling and the case was dismissed or so I thought. Which would explain this and it's .gov.uk domain extension. I just try and put two and two together. I am just another user just as yourself though so I cannot tell you if I am 100% right and I am surely not an attorney.Wait, the UK case was "determined" already. What does that mean?
No, the case in the UK continues, as does the one in California.I was under the impression that the case in the UK has already had a ruling and the case was dismissed or so I thought.
No, the case in the UK continues, as does the one in California.
Aren't attorneys paid hourly? How could the Court know the winner's cost beforehand? Lawers' fees can add up to a huge amount, millions in some cases....In English civil law, the loser of each round of litigation is required to pay the winner's costs, including attorney's fees. The Court must have the power to compel the losing party to do this....
It is upon the parties to make an estimation and the Court to decide if the figure is reasonable and probable.Aren't attorneys paid hourly? How could the Court know the winner's cost beforehand? Lawers' fees can add up to a huge amount, millions in some cases.
The key I guess is to try and get this ASAP. IB won't want to abandon the UK case because that could reflect on the US case. They also won't be keen to stump up the security for the UK case, knowing more than likely that they won't win and thus will be out of pocket anyway. However, to counter that, putting up a few hundred thousand dollars isn't going to be too hard for a company like IB I guess, even if they subsequently abandon the case and get it back.It is upon the parties to make an estimation and the Court to decide if the figure is reasonable and probable.
Bear in mind that applications for security of costs are the exception, not the rule. Most of the time there is no need to make such an estimation, and costs are determined after the conclusion of the litigation.Thanks for the clarification. To me this system looks like a motivation killer to brilliant lawyers. "Sorry, pal, you've reached your cap. Gotta go. Next..."
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.