Brian May was left raging about the justice system following a court case taken against a neighbour which saw him win "a paltry sum" and ultimately left him over a hundred thousand of pounds out of pocket due to a costs row. Brian and his wife Anita Dobson brought proceedings in the county court for nuisance caused by a neighbour’s basement development in 2016 when the couple were living in Kensington in London.

"Master Rowley decided that the costs I’d detailed were inaccurate, or excessive (based on what evidence I have no idea), so he arbitrarily reduced them; and then he applied this new rule of proportionality, which dictates that if the costs are much higher than the damages, they must be reduced to be ‘in proportion’... I spent £208,000 pounds, received £25,000 in damages, plus a derisory £42,000 in costs [including VAT], and so I end up being out of pocket on the whole thing by about £141,000 pounds. Where’s the proportionality in that? Where’s the justice? This absurd proportionality rule makes it absolutely impossible for any abused party to protect himself," he wrote in an article on his website.

"This proportionality rule is nonsense, and makes a mockery of justice; it is yet another way of ensuring that the super-rich can do anything they like to increase their wealth, including destroying the quality of life of those around them.

"What was in the mind of the people who introduced this ridiculous rule of proportionality?" he fumed.

A court decided the principle of proportionality in civil costs for the case, which is limited to 20% of the amount sought.

Costs judge Master Rowley ultimately determined that costs allowed in the case should be reduced to £35,000 plus VAT.

He reduced the costs in two steps. First, reducing the claim to £99,000 as a figure that was deemed more "reasonable".

The second reduction was made after a proportionality test was applied. The judge explained that, even where the costs incurred were reasonable, some of those costs were disproportionate.

Amongst the five reasons given for the reduction were the fact Brian had "accepted the first offer given to him, and the amount accepted was an accurate reflection of the sums in issue. The level of costs was therefore not in line with the value of the claim."

Also the claim was deemed to be neither legally nor factually complicated and as such the high level of costs was disproportionate to the issue.