Depending on the case, the judge can order that the loser pays more if they feel the case was fraudulent, misleading, etc.
See Samsung vs Apple, initially Apple didn't have to pay Samsung's fees, but after Apple annoyed the judge with their non-apology apology, the judge ordered that Apple pay [1]:
As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.
Yes, but it's very rare for the winner to be able to recover their full costs. The loser can dispute the costs, which then requires more legal /court time to put a "fair" value on the winner's costs, which in itself can cost a small fortune for a complex case. The whole libel system is an expensive nightmare for anyone caught up in it frankly.
See Samsung vs Apple, initially Apple didn't have to pay Samsung's fees, but after Apple annoyed the judge with their non-apology apology, the judge ordered that Apple pay [1]:
As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html