>Courts are not generally required to award costs to the winner of a case here in England, it is more of a default in most cases instead of adopting "everyone pays their own costs" as in the US.

Thanks, I didn't know this. I'm still not convinced that the threat of legal fees wouldn't convince a non-insignificant fraction of poor plaintiffs not to sue.

> I guess you're referring to so-called "no win, no fee" agreements? If so, it's not quite as simple as that (the lawyers also stand to gain more if they win than they would in a regular case)...

I know. In effect, the lawyer is selling insurance to the client. The client will get less in case of a win both because (a) he bought insurance, which brings his variance down (and so, his total payout in case of a win is lower) and (b) the lawyer collects a premium for absorbing the risk.