High court sets 25% cap on medical reporting fees, rejecting higher markups in key costs ruling
The High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the recoverability of medical reporting organisation (MRO) fees, imposing a 25% cap on markups and rejecting widely used higher charging models.
In a judgment, Senior Costs Judge Rowley ruled on disputes arising from two linked cases concerning the recoverability of fees charged by MROs in personal injury litigation. The decision is expected to have wide-ranging implications across the claims sector.
The court was asked to determine how fees charged by organisations such as Medical and Professional Services Limited (MAPS) and Premex Services Limited should be assessed when included in legal costs claims.
MROs act as intermediaries, arranging medical evidence by sourcing experts, organising appointments, and managing documentation. Their fees are typically added as a percentage markup on top of the expert’s own charges.
A central issue in the case was whether these fees should be treated as equivalent to solicitors’ work requiring detailed breakdowns or as disbursements assessed more broadly for reasonableness.
Judge Rowley concluded that MRO fees are properly classified as disbursements rather than outsourced legal work. This finding means that courts are not required to compare such fees directly with hypothetical solicitor time costs.
However, the judge rejected arguments that MRO fees should simply be accepted in full based on market rates. He found that the percentage markups often ranging between 30% and over 50%, and in some cases exceeding 100% were not adequately justified by the evidence.
Crucially, the court identified a structural issue in the market: those negotiating MRO fees (claimant solicitors) are not the same parties who ultimately pay them (defendants or insurers). This “tripartite” dynamic weakens the argument that competition alone ensures reasonable pricing.
The judgment also dismissed claims that MROs reduce expert fees through bulk negotiation, finding little convincing evidence that experts offer meaningful discounts compared to direct solicitor instruction.
On the question of whether elements of MRO fees constituted irrecoverable “funding costs,” the court found they did not. Features such as deferred payment and write-off arrangements were deemed part of ordinary commercial relationships rather than separate funding mechanisms.
Despite rejecting the defendants’ argument that fees should be disallowed entirely, the court also declined to accept the claimants’ position that full recovery was justified.
Instead, Judge Rowley adopted a broad evaluative approach, concluding that a reasonable and proportionate markup recoverable between the parties is 25%.
Any amount above that level, the court held, should not be recoverable from the opposing party and must instead be borne by claimants, their solicitors, or the MROs themselves.
The ruling provides long-awaited High Court guidance in an area that has seen inconsistent approaches for over two decades, and may prompt further appeals or regulatory scrutiny.