MRO Costs: Determining the Successful Party

In JXX v Archibald [2026] EWHC 630, Senior Costs Judge Rowley gave judgment in an important case concerning the recoverability of Medical Reporting Organisation (“MRO”) fees in personal injury claims. The Defendants challenged the fees claimed by the MROs, while the Claimants sought to recover them as part of their medical disbursements. The dispute therefore focused on the extent to which MRO fees could properly be recovered and the evidence required to justify them. This decision is being appealed to the Court of Appeal, and it is hoped the result will provide definitive guidance for practitioners.

In the meantime, judgment has been given on the consequential issue of costs and, in particular, which party should bear the costs of the MRO-related proceedings (JXX v Archibald [2026] EWHC 2404).

The MRO Dispute

In considering the costs issue, the Judge outlined the key points regarding his previous decision. He had rejected the Defendants’ proposed notion of a “Stringer cap” which limited the fees payable to the MRO to the type of work that would have been undertaken by a solicitor who had instructed the medical expert directly. The Defendants argued that if the MRO produced the information originally envisaged in Stringer v Copley, they would be prepared to pay for such work. However, the Judge considered that the practical effect of the Defendants’ position was that little or nothing would ultimately be recoverable by the MROs. In the earlier judgment Judge Rowley had found that the MRO fees were a disbursement and not limited by comparison with a hypothetical solicitor’s work.

Equally, the Judge had rejected the Claimants’ argument that the fee for producing the medical evidence was a unitary disbursement which did not need to be broken down into any constituent elements but should simply be considered globally as to whether it was reasonable and proportionate. Accordingly, the Claimants were required to provide evidence as to the proportion of the overall fee attributable to the MRO and the methodology used to calculate that figure.

The Successful Party

All parties contended that they had been successful in these proceedings, yet had appealed the decision.

The Judge outlined that the Claimants and MROs had been successful on most of the issues raised between the parties. This was in relation to the Stringer cap issue, administration-type fees and funding costs. The only point that the Judge did not find in favour of the Claimants and MROs was what they described as the 25% cap.

The Judge went on to highlight that the Claimants obtained an order in their favour for payment of sums by the Defendants which they would not otherwise have received, and referred to CPR 44.2 where the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. Therefore, concluding that the Claimants were the successful party.

The position following the 40% reduction in MRO fees

Although the MRO fees were ultimately reduced by approximately 40%, the Judge did not consider this sufficient to make the Claimants the unsuccessful party. While such a reduction could be a significant factor in a conventional detailed assessment and could justify some adjustment to the costs order, it would not ordinarily deprive an otherwise successful party of its costs altogether.

When was the Defendant successful?

The Defendant was successful in relation to the disclosure application and was therefore awarded its costs of that application. The result of the application was to require separation of the MRO fees from the expert’s fees as contended for the Defendant.

In conclusion, the judgment demonstrates that the Court’s assessment of success is a holistic one. Whilst the Defendants were successful in obtaining disclosure and the MRO fees were reduced, the Claimants and MROs were successful overall because they succeeded on most of the key issues and ultimately obtained an order for payment in their favour. Consequently, those individual successes for the Defendants did not alter the overall costs outcome.

Angela Nako is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.