Senior Costs Judge Rowley ruled that claimants and MROs were successful on most issues.
Medical reporting fees were at the centre of a costs dispute in which the High Court has awarded the claimants and medical reporting organisations (MROs) their costs of the proceedings, while awarding Mr Scott Archibald the costs of a separate disclosure application.
Senior Costs Judge Rowley delivered the judgment on 18 September 2026 following a hearing on 8 June 2026 in the Senior Courts Costs Office. The proceedings concerned costs arising from challenges to medical disbursements in JXX v Scott Archibald and related proceedings involving HLA.
The underlying dispute included whether fees charged by MROs should be subject to what was described as a “Stringer cap”. The judge had previously rejected the argument that MRO fees should be limited to the type of work a solicitor would have carried out if they had instructed the medical expert directly.
He also rejected the claimants’ argument that the MRO fee was a single disbursement that did not need to be broken down into its constituent elements. Instead, the claimant in JXX had been given a choice: provide information about the MRO fees and how the MRO’s proportion of the overall charge was calculated, or have the assessment proceed as if the fee related solely to the expert’s own work.
On the costs question, Judge Rowley considered CPR 47.20 and the general rule that the successful party is normally entitled to its costs. He concluded that the claimants and MROs had been successful on most of the issues, including the Stringer cap issue, administration-type fees and funding costs. The only issue on which they did not succeed was what they described as the 25% cap.
The judge therefore awarded the claimants and MROs their costs relating to the MRO issues without a percentage reduction. He separately found that Mr Archibald had been successful in the disclosure application and awarded him the costs of that application. The costs of the joinder applications were awarded to the claimants and MROs.
The judgment also addressed the reduction in MRO fees. In HLA, the MRO fees were reduced by approximately 40% from the amounts claimed. Judge Rowley said that, although such a reduction would normally be relevant when considering a different costs order, it did not change the overall conclusion that the claimants were the successful parties.
The claimants’ costs, which were described as being well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds, are to be assessed on the standard basis by way of detailed assessment if they cannot be agreed. Judge Rowley rejected summary assessment as too blunt an approach given the sums involved and the specific challenges that would need to be considered.
All parties have appealed the earlier substantive decision. Judge Rowley therefore made no order for payment on account of costs, leaving the parties able to await the Court of Appeal’s decision before the costs are quantified