> I do so philanthropically without any profit motive (typically losing money)
the cost (and hassle) of consulting with a lawyer is potentially a lot in relative terms.
That said, I thought that the rule in the UK was generally that the loser pays the winners costs, so I'd think that limit the costs of defending truly frivolous suits. The downside risks are possibly still high though.
> That said, I thought that the rule in the UK was generally that the loser pays the winners costs
That’s generally true… but only happens after those costs have been incurred and probably paid.
There’s no guarantee the party suing will be able to cover their own costs and the defendant’s costs. That leaves OP on the hook for defence costs with the hope that they might get them back after a successful and likely expensive defence.
In that situation, I can understand why OP wouldn’t want to take the risk.
Winning against the government is difficult - an asymmetric unfair fight. You can't afford to pay the costs to try: financial, risk, opportunity cost, and most importantly YOUR time.
> I do so philanthropically without any profit motive (typically losing money)
the cost (and hassle) of consulting with a lawyer is potentially a lot in relative terms.
That said, I thought that the rule in the UK was generally that the loser pays the winners costs, so I'd think that limit the costs of defending truly frivolous suits. The downside risks are possibly still high though.