In most of the UK these cases are heard by a magistrate or judge, not a jury. (The system is different in Scotland)

If a claimant loses his case nowadays the costs are generally met by insurance and I have never heard of anyone there being sued for malicious prosecution. Legal insurers generally insist that a case must be winable before they will agree to carry the cost, but, at the end of the day, the verdict is rendered by one man on the bench and, based on some of the decisions made, they ain't infallible. If the claimant has been badly injured, or can be seen to be vulnerable, or, in one case I was involved in, is an attractive young woman, they have more of a chance of success with the right judge. Cases that seem to be ridiculous on all the evidence have resulted in big payouts to the claimant.

In Scotland the jury system makes it worse - you're looking at twelve people who have no real idea of the workings of the law and who quite often go, in civil cases on the 'there but for the grace of god' principle.

I have had personal experience of solicitors who are quite aware that their clients are bending the truth, to say the least and who still ramrod through the system because they work on the premise that insurers will likely pay out rather than risk the cost of a court case.

Back to the jokes - we were driving past a building today and Kendall told me he owns part of it. When I asked about that he told me it's his lawyer's office. Quite!