Brian May raises valid points about the legitimacy of the new proportionality test, as applied by Master Rowley. Can it really be desirable to leave a winning party in litigation so dramatically out of pocket? I would argue to the contrary. Access to justice and the restorative principles of the law of tort I would contend must prevail over what is at best an arbitrary and subjective application of an ambiguous Rule 44.3 (5). Those who say "...well so what, he can afford it" miss the point. This is a matter of great public importance to the kind of civil justice system a developed democracy should have. The possible alternative, as Dr May alludes to, is that people could take the law into their own hands. We should be able to do better than that.