Medical Reporting Agencies | Burden Upon The Claimant To Justify Expert Fees With Or Without A Breakdown

JXX V ARCHIBALD [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO)

Addressing medical reporting organisation (MRO) fees, Costs Judge Rowley provided a resolution requiring transparency, offering claimants two assessment pathways: either provide comprehensive fee breakdowns demonstrating the reasonable value of agency services or accept assessment based solely on the expert evidence without agency involvement, potentially compelling MROs like MAPS and Premex to justify their additional administrative charges more rigorously in future detailed assessment proceedings.

In my judgment, the better course is essentially to put the claimant’s side to an election. The fees in the composite invoices will either be assessed: a) on the basis of the expert’s evidence and the MRO work in obtaining that evidence if the information...is provided; or b) on the hypothetical basis that there had been no MAPS’ involvement...if no such information is provided.

Citations

Stringer v Copley (unreported, HHJ Cook, 30 May 2002) Fees charged by medical agencies are recoverable between the parties, provided it is demonstrated that the charges do not exceed the reasonable and proportionate costs that would have been incurred had the solicitors performed the work themselves. Woollard v Fowler [2005] EWHC 90051 (Costs) Medical agency fees are recoverable if they are shown to replace work that otherwise would have been performed by solicitors, provided the associated costs are reasonable and proportionate. Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust v Hoskin (2023, HHJ Bird) Recoverability of medical reporting agency fees depends on providing sufficient breakdowns to assess whether the charges are reasonable in comparison to solicitors performing equivalent tasks. CXR v Dome Holdings Ltd (extempore, Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker, 14 August 2023) In the absence of a breakdown of medical agency fees, it is challenging to determine whether the charges are reasonable compared to the cost of solicitors performing the equivalent work.

Track allocation housing disrepair CPR 46.13 settlement sum costs restriction SCCO

MRO fee markup cap 25% detailed assessment personal injury Senior Courts Costs Office

Security for costs refused CPR 25.27 very high probability success excessive estimate King's Bench

IPEC scale costs transfer Patents Court PD 30 para 9.2 costs caps Court of Appeal

Costs budget variation CPR 3.15A promptness significant development unfair prejudice Chancery Division

Costs budgeting inter partes proportionality high hourly rates AI disclosure Patents Court CPR 3E

Beneficiary personal liability section 71(3) Solicitors Act 1974 indemnity costs VAT self-supply SCCO

Summary assessment indemnity costs unless order payment on account disclosure default Chancery Division

Provisional assessment set aside CPR 3.1(7) points of dispute filing duty PD 47 para 14.3 SCCO

Fixed recoverable costs police claims CPR 26.9(10)(e) intentional tort exemption

Key Points

For costs recovery involving Medical Reporting Organisations (MROs), the receiving party must demonstrate that the MRO’s charges do not exceed the reasonable and proportionate costs a solicitor would have incurred completing the same work themselves. [12, 29]
The requirement under Practice Direction 47, paragraph 5(c), to serve fee notes of any expert “in respect of fees claimed in the bill” applies to the fees charged by the expert themselves. Where composite invoices are issued by a third party like an MRO, the court may require a breakdown of the expert’s fees and the third party’s charges. [16, 30]
On a standard basis assessment, where there is a lack of transparency regarding an MRO’s fees, the court may treat the receiving party’s claim as being solely for the expert’s evidence and assess the reasonableness of fees against comparable rates for direct appointments, excluding consideration of MRO work. [30, 36(b)]

The claimant bears the burden of justifying additional costs associated with the use of an intermediary such as an MRO, including providing evidence of the intermediary’s specific contributions and how such contributions reduce solicitor workload or create overall cost efficiency. Failure to substantiate such claims may lead to reductions in recoverable costs. [13, 27-29]
A receiving party’s failure to adequately evidence the division between an expert’s fees and ancillary MRO work may result in a comparison with directly sourced expert fees, placing the receiving party at risk of reductions on assessment. [33, 36]

The claimant’s reliance on MAPS’ composite invoices requires scrutiny due to MAPS' refusal to provide detailed breakdowns of charges. Without evidence justifying MAPS’ fees, I find the invoices must be assessed either as inclusive of expert and MRO work if evidence is supplied or solely on the expert’s evidence if not, comparing costs to standards established in prior case law.

Key Findings In The Case

The court found that the Claimant’s failure to provide a breakdown of Medical Reporting Organisation (MRO) charges to distinguish the expert’s fees from the MRO’s administrative work meant that the composite invoices would be treated as claims solely for the expert’s evidence, excluding consideration of any MRO input unless further information was provided. [36(b)]
The Defendant’s evidence from the Poulter case, which demonstrated that experts’ fees directly invoiced to MROs were significantly lower than the composite fees subsequently invoiced to solicitors, indicated that the MRO’s charges formed a substantial component of the claimed costs, warranting further scrutiny. [25-26, 29]
The conduct of the MRO in refusing to provide a breakdown of its charges, despite the Claimant’s representation that such information would be disclosed, undermined the Claimant’s justification for the reasonableness of the total sums claimed, as it prevented the court from assessing whether the MRO’s costs were reasonable or proportionate. [10, 22, 27]

The Claimant’s reliance on MAPS (the MRO) to streamline procurement of expert evidence was accepted in principle, but the Claimant failed to substantiate how MAPS’ involvement reduced solicitors’ fees or achieved overall cost efficiencies as claimed in their replies, thereby failing to satisfy the burden of showing that MAPS’ charges were recoverable. [13, 27-29]
The court ruled that, in the absence of a transparent breakdown of costs, the Defendant retained the right to introduce comparative evidence of directly sourced expert fees, which would guide the assessment of the reasonableness of the claimed costs. The onus was on the Claimant to provide sufficient documentation to justify the fees in full. [30-32, 38]

The absence of a breakdown of the MRO charges makes it impossible to determine whether the fees claimed exceed the reasonable and proportionate costs had the claimant's solicitors done the same work. If the MRO declines to provide justification, the composite fees are likely to be reduced on assessment, focusing on the expert’s evidence alone.

Background

The case of JXX v Archibald involved a road traffic accident on 5 May 2018, resulting in severe injuries to the claimant, who became a protected party. The claim was settled on 28 March 2023, with terms approved by the Court on 16 May 2023. Detailed assessment proceedings commenced on 20 September 2023, with the claimant’s bill of costs totalling £901,026.98. The dispute focused on expert evidence fees sourced via Medical and Professional Services Limited (MAPS), a medical reporting organisation (MRO), which were challenged by the defendant due to a lack of transparency in the billing process.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The primary costs issue before the court was whether the claimant’s bill of costs was compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules, specifically regarding the inclusion of expert fees procured through MAPS. The defendant sought a declaration that these fees were non-compliant and requested that detailed assessment proceedings be stayed until the claimant provided detailed breakdowns of the costs. The key issue was the reasonableness and proportionality of the fees charged by MAPS, as compared to what solicitors would have charged for similar work.

The Parties’ Positions

The claimant argued that the use of MAPS was efficient and cost-effective, reducing solicitors’ costs while providing valuable services. They maintained that the fees claimed were reasonable and proportionate, citing the precedent set by cases such as Stringer v Copley. The defendant, however, disputed these fees, highlighting a significant disparity in costs when compared to direct instructions and arguing that a breakdown of MAPS’ charges was necessary to assess their reasonableness.

The Court’s Decision

The court determined that the claimant must decide whether to provide a breakdown of the fees charged by MAPS and the experts or to proceed with the assessment based solely on the expert evidence. If the claimant chose the former, the fees would be assessed considering both the expert’s evidence and MAPS’ involvement. If not, the assessment would be based on the hypothetical scenario of no MAPS involvement, focusing solely on the expert’s evidence. The court emphasised that the burden of providing evidence to justify the claimed fees rested with the claimant, and failure to do so could result in reduced allowances during the assessment.

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.