The problem that I see there: so the whole process cost her a pretty penny, judging by the amount she's apparently claiming back from him, right?
So if he had counter-sued, those process cost would just have been doubled overall, meaning both are just out of pocket more? How is that beneficial to anyone? Apart from the lawyers, obviously.
I think (and IANA lawyer) that the claim was for damages and costs already incurred. He could have claimed on the same basis, so the net cost in either direction would have been minimal, and the increase in process costs likwise, small.
The problem that I see there: so the whole process cost her a pretty penny, judging by the amount she's apparently claiming back from him, right?
So if he had counter-sued, those process cost would just have been doubled overall, meaning both are just out of pocket more? How is that beneficial to anyone? Apart from the lawyers, obviously.