Originally Posted by
engine out
I would say that settling is not having been found to break the law. More likely they were not sufficiently sure that they would be successful and played the odds that a settlement is cheaper without setting any precedent. The other party was also not positive they could win and also took the money and run. Essential both parties edging their bets and not willing to let courts decide in the others favour.
Agree. Moreover, the costs of running the case and any subsequent appeals may have been more than the settlement. In any case, what Qantas would have done is run a risk assessment and made a decision it was better to settle than litigate. That lesson applies to pilots too.
Also, even though Keg's comments/opinions on this matter may be 'unqualified', I find them to be pretty accurate and sensible.