Hardly “technicalities”!
They are fundamental to the whole basis of the claim. If this fails and a trial is ordered that’s when the costs spiral. That is, of course, what Trump really wants. He knows he has next to no chance of actually winning. He wants to embarrass the BBC, put it through the enormous costs involved of the laborious discovery process that’s required in the USA, in which his lawyers will demand sight of every document in the BBC’s possession for some years that mentions Trump and will then select any that criticise him to claim bias. Then there will be lengthy depositions taken from the senior executives involved, lasting days and from very aggressive lawyers. Then a televised trial.
It’s malicious and designed to extract an undeserved settlement because it’s cheaper to settle than fight. Trump extracted settlements from other media companies in this way, so getting the claim dismissed is by far the most desirable outcome for the BBC. Should they fail, which is possible given where it will be heard, then I hope the BBC decide to fight, with the government backing it, and not just fold to save costs.
When my insurer was defrauded by someone claiming a fictitious personal injury they wanted to settle pre trial because they thought it was cost effective to do so. I persuaded them that standing up to fraudsters was something that must be done, whatever the cost. We lost and the fraudster got away with it, but the principle of resisting fraudsters was maintained.
I hope the case is dismissed and the BBC then sue Trump for their costs, claiming the prosecution was malicious and without foundation.
Scotland
England