Matthew GarrettSomething that the whole lawsuit thing taught me is that settlement offers aren't an indication of weakness - there's a significant strategic aspect of them under English law. This is covered by part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part36), and one of the most interesting parts is 36.17 - the consequences of not accepting an offer to settle. The court system prefers a resolution that avoids court whenever possible, so there are strong incentives for that.
The short version is that if someone offers a settlement and you refuse it, and the case goes to trial and you either lose, or win but don't win as much as was offered in the settlement, you owe costs from the date that the settlement offer was made, and you owe them at what's called the "indemnity basis" - ie, you have to pay more. This means that there's a strong incentive to make a settlement offer early in the proceedings. If the other side refuses, they'll likely end up owing you more.
James Bennett@mjg59 There’s a similar idea in US federal procedure, which has occasionally bitten IP trolls who refuse a settlement offer.
