Apple tried to pull a fast one in the U.K. over the whole “you must publish and apology” ruling from the courts. First they had to acknowledge that their first apology was inaccurate, then they were accused of hiding the apology, and finally fixed things. Done? Not quite yet. The U.K. courts were less than amused at Apple’s behavior so they ruled that not only do they need to pay Samsung’s court costs (normal), but pay on an indemnity basis as punishment.
While it’s common in U.K. courts (and other places) for the loser to pay the winners legal costs, often the “how much do I have to pay” decision also goes before the courts (adding insult to injury), but this is different. This decision is meant to punish Apple even more:
The judgement, intended to humiliate Apple, will require the company to pay for all expenses associated with Samsung’s legal defense, with any disputes over the exact amount likely to be resolved in the latter firm’s favor.
Via: The Verge
Reading up on “indemnity basis” this is what I learned:
The purpose of indemnity costs is to provide a party with compensation to as full an extent as possible for the outlay and trouble of litigation.
If costs are ordered to be assessed on the indemnity basis, on assessment, the costs judge will only allow costs to be recovered which are:
(1) Reasonably incurred.
(2) Reasonable in amount.
There is no requirement for the costs to have been proportionate.
The costs judge will resolve any doubt in favour of the receiving party. This has the effect of putting the onus on the paying party to show that the costs claimed are unreasonable. This means that the receiving party is more likely to obtain a higher recovery than on the standard basis. It is, therefore, advantageous to be awarded costs on an indemnity basis.
Via: - Law Articles and News – Lawdit Reading Room
For more you can refer to Wikipedia, but essentially it means Samsung it pretty likely to get a large chunk of cash from Apple…at least in this case.