Let me elaborate on the “winning a case” position.
In JT’s case it seems that some agreement (called a settlement) was reached between the two parties.
When this happens, the lawyers always say at the beginning of the settlement deed something to the effect that no fault is found with either party. So that means no one actually won (further you can only win a case if the judge determines that)
Now when a settlement is made its usual for both parties to reach a mutually agreed position (usually some sort of monetary settlement). That means that one party gives up something (money) to appease the other party.
If your case was to seek compensation of say one million dollars and on settlement you received a half a million, you’d call that a win. But that’s different to winning a court case. (even though the outcome may have been the same)
And the take out of this from me, if anyone has got this far, is that settling a matter out of court is always preferable to going to court. In a settlement you have control of the outcome. If you leave it to the court, its pot luck.