Millicent North analyses the recent judgment in the case of JXX (A Protected party by his Litigation Friend ABB) v Scott Archibald.
When is the receiving party required to provide a breakdown of the medical reporting fees?
Medical reporting organisations (MRO’s) have become indispensable in personal injury and clinical negligence work and information, by way of Part 18, has oft been sought to determine a breakdown of their fees alongside the expert fees.
The County Court has been much troubled over the last two decades with this question, without a binding High Court decision. Two years ago, on a report on this blog, James Miller dealt with this very issue and the subsequent two years, judges have given varied answers and dicta in similar cases.
In a judgment handed down this week, Senior Costs Judge Rowley sitting in the Senior Courts Costs Office in the case of JXX v Archibald[1] has provided further consideration of the same.
Procedural History
The substantive case of JXX arose from a road traffic accident, settled in 2024. The settlement was approved by the Court and detailed assessment proceedings commenced. A total figure for expert’s fees in the bill of costs served of £253,859.96 precipitated a request for a breakdown of fees from the MRO, which was refused. The Claimant was put to election; to either provide further information on the medical evidence fees or for the fees to be assessed on the hypothetical basis that there had been no agency involvement.
Judgment
Judge Rowley found a middle ground to those two options. He concluded there was no requirement to provide a breakdown, as he classified the fees as a disbursement. Flowing from that, Judge Rowley did not limit the fees to a comparison with a hypothetical solicitor’s work in obtaining that medical evidence. The fees are still subject to the test for reasonableness; but there is no requirement to provide a breakdown equivalent to that which is produced by a solicitor in their bill of costs.[2] The Court also rejected arguments from the Defendant that the fees should be simply assessed at nil.
Judge Rowley found that the ‘cut’ for the MRO should be limited to no more than a 25% increase on expert’s fees; and that “one advantage of a maximum recoverable percentage fee is that it can easily be stated on the MRO invoice, unlike the quasi-solicitors’ breakdown, which might assist all sides as well as the court in the future”.[3]
Analysis
Whilst clarity is welcomed, further appeals are likely. At the beginning of the judgment, Judge Rowley noted that “I have said on more than one occasion during the proceedings that a determinative authority would be welcome in this area. I imagine that one, or possibly both, sides will wish to seek that determinative decision”.[4]
Whilst we await any further appeal, this judgment is likely to cause concern to some MRO’s. Evidence supplied in JXX and similar cases elucidated a mark-up in some cases of up to 104%, with the majority of mark-ups being between 30% and 53%.[5] Whilst providing an element of security in practice for Defendant firms, MRO’s will find their business model impacted should this be applied more broadly.
March 2026
[1] [2026] EWCA 630 SCCO
[2] Ibid, para 59
[3] Id, para 139
[4] Id, para 3
[5] Id, para 134
Millicent North is a member of the Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence and Costs Department at 18 St John Street Chambers. For more information on Millicent and the members of the team, please contact Senior Clerk Katie Brown 0161 278 1800 or email pi@18sjs.com.