Legal Case - Win the battle and lose the war.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Consult your lawyer for legal advice.
⚖️ – Win the Battle, Lose the War
In litigation, even a completely victorious defendant often “wins the battle but loses the war” — financially. Legal costs can be crushing, and victory on paper may still feel hollow in practice.
Do you all remember my MANTRA: 'Make it happen; don't let it happen.' Let us think about this.
Yet our legal system does recognize exceptions. When a case is brought or defended in bad faith, vexatiously, frivolously, or simply to harass the other side, courts have tools to shift nearly all of the winner’s fees and costs onto the loser.
Frivolous pleadings or motions: If a party or attorney files documents that are not grounded in fact or law, or are filed for harassment or delay, the court can impose sanctions. These sanctions may include “reasonable attorney’s fees” caused by the violation.
Inherent authority of courts: Even without a specific statute, courts can sanction bad-faith conduct by ordering the losing side to pay the winner’s full fees.
Statutory provisions: In jurisdictions like the U.S., hundreds of statutes authorize fee-shifting for bad-faith or frivolous conduct — e.g., civil rights cases (42 U.S.C. § 1988), patents (35 U.S.C. § 285), and copyright (17 U.S.C. § 505).
Indemnity and punitive costs: Courts may order “indemnity costs” (close to 100% recovery) or even “punitive costs” when a case is pursued unreasonably, fraudulently, or in bad faith.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are designed to silence critics through meritless litigation.
Malaysia’s current position: Sabah, and Malaysia more broadly, do not yet have standalone anti-SLAPP statutes.
Future developments: In August 2025, the Malaysian government launched its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAPBHR) 2025–2030, which includes a commitment to explore federal-level anti-SLAPP legislation.
Why it matters: Such laws would protect individuals and civil society groups from being dragged into frivolous lawsuits simply for speaking out on matters of public interest.
Let’s hope Malaysia enacts these protections soon, so defendants facing meritless suits can recover attorney’s fees — and perhaps statutory damages — without being financially ruined.
🔹 Practical Reality (U.S. Example)
In the United States, truly frivolous or malicious lawsuits sometimes result in six-figure fee awards against the loser or their lawyer.
Example:
Stormy Daniels was ordered to pay President Trump about $300,000 in fees, plus another $300,000 on appeal, after her defamation suit was dismissed as meritless.
🔹 Why Fee-Shifting Still Feels Rare
Judges are reluctant to label a case “frivolous” unless it is blatantly groundless.
Weak, long-shot, or even dishonest cases often don’t meet the threshold.
Proving “bad faith” requires a separate motion and often an evidentiary hearing.
Many defendants cannot afford to pursue fee recovery even when they win.
⚖️ Bottom Line
If a plaintiff sues for “no reason” or purely malicious purposes and loses, the defendant can recover most or all of their attorney’s fees in principle. The remedies exist in almost every developed legal system — but they are applied sparingly, and usually only in the most egregious cases.
The system does provide a remedy when someone weaponizes the courts. The challenge is that the remedy remains the exception, not the rule. Perhaps I can make it happen.
Comments