> In a civil case the plaintiff holds the advantage having gotten the judge's
> ear FIRST... and the burden of proof usually lands the defendant(s).  Even
> in Family Court.
>
> In criminal court my understanding is that the state ties a hand behind
> it's back because it already *has* too great an advantage, hence the need
> to require proof of guilt.
>
> So, in a civil case, the plaintiff starts out holding the high ground.

Following Lord Wolff's reforms, the word "complainant" is now used in the UK rather 
than
"plaintiff".

In an English criminal case, the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" and the
prosecution has to prove guilt.  The defendant does not have to prove innocence but 
obviously
can shoot down some or all of the prosecution's case.

In a civil action, it's a "balance of probabilities" and it's much more two-sided, but 
the
complainant still has to prove a case.

What surprised me was the thoroughness of the "discovery" process.  It took over a 
year in the
case I was involved in. The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court does not like 
surprises,
and you have to reveal everything you plan to depend on in your case.  The opposition 
gets to
see it too.  Then you have to define what damages you expect, and the defendants can 
choose to
pay a sum into court.

If you refuse their offer and go to trial, you face a "litigation risk".  If what you 
are
awarded is more than was paid in, the defendant pays all costs.  If what you are 
awarded is
less than was paid in, you pay the costs.

In the Godfrey case the action was for GBP15,000 - about $25,000.  One of Demon's 
tactical
mistakes was paying in a derisory sum - ISTR GBP2,500?  Godfrey won his case implicitly
because Demon settled out of court - which meant that Demon paid the legal costs - 
around a
quarter of a million.

SCO is really a long way out on a shaky limb - betting the company doesn't begin to 
describe
it.  I don't think there's a real issue for SCO users, since their installed base is 
about the
only asset they have apart from the disputed IP and it will be sold off by the 
creditors to
achieve the best return.  Probably to Novell.  Perhaps even before the action starts.

--
  Phil Payne
  http://www.isham-research.com
  +44 7785 302 803

Reply via email to