Honest question: Are there countries where this is not the case? I'd be interested to read more about how that manage that. If it's some sort of "protecting the little guy"-type thing or a general suppression of legal costs. Or maybe I'm reading too much into your comment.
So if you have been wrongly accused, that may cost you nothing.
The insurance doesn’t mind fighting for you because they will get paid by the company making the frivolous suit. You don’t pay much, 10$/month.
Although in this particular case, you wouldn’t even need that, since either you took the documents and that is criminal fraud prosecuted by the state or you didn’t take the documents and then the company would be in hella trouble if they perjured themselves to the public prosecutor claiming you did.
In every other country, the loser pays the winner's legal fees.
Sue someone who can spend millions of pounds (for the sake of argument) on defence? Better be certain you can win... against someone who can spend millions of pounds, and probably went to the same public school as the judge.
In America, legal fees can be awarded as additional damages. We should do it more than we do. But given those two options? I'm on Team American Rule, 100%
The English Rule has several variations by jurisdiction, you'll find a handy map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney's_fees)
In England (where pounds come from) costs are not always rewarded, but very frequently, they are: and it's actual costs, not some fixed fee. A litigant who spends more on solicitors indemnifies the loser accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law#What_can_...?
Perhaps you live somewhere where this is not the usual basis. Perhaps you just felt like being rude online. We'll never know.
Unless your friend happens to actually be a legally licensed lawyer.