Brian Mays court costs disaster as he fumes wheres | UK News

Brian May was left raging in regards to the justice system following a court case taken in opposition to a neighbour which noticed him win “a paltry sum” and finally left him over a hundred thousand of kilos out of pocket because of a costs row. Brian and his spouse Anita Dobson introduced proceedings within the county court for nuisance brought on by a neighbour’s basement development in 2016 when the couple had been dwelling 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 web site.

“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 within the thoughts of the people who launched 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 “cheap”.

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 primary offer given to him, and the quantity accepted was an correct reflection of the sums in challenge. The stage of costs was due to this fact not in step with the worth of the declare.”

Also the declare was deemed to be neither legally nor factually difficult and as such the high stage of costs was disproportionate to the problem.