Court's ultimatum to medical agency: Explain your fees or we'll slash them

A claimant's costs could be slashed unless they reveal details of fees paid to the agency handling their medical report.

The ruling from Truro County Court (pictured above) is the latest in a growing number of cases where medical agencies have refused requests from defendants for a breakdown of costs.

In Parsons v Stevens, Deputy District Judge Fentem concluded that ordering a reply to the request was ‘reasonably necessary and proportionate’ to the matters at stake and that commercial sensitivity was not a good enough reason to refuse.

Claimant lawyers had sought to recover the £5,880 (plus VAT) cost of a pain management report fee, but without a breakdown of what was paid to medical agency Premex. The judge reduced this to £1,250 for the doctor’s fee and £250 for the agency’s costs.

The judge said the application for a breakdown of costs was made amid ‘significant controversy’ about whether claimants in a fixed costs case should be obliged to give full disclosure. The Gazette reported last week that county courts in different parts of the country had reached different verdicts, with calls growing for guidance from a higher court or the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.

In Parsons, an RTA claim which had settled for £25,000, Premex had written to the defendant saying it was ‘unwilling to provide commercially sensitive data’ in response to the Part 18 breakdown request. The agency went on to say that providing such information would place a ‘disproportionate burden of disclosure upon a commercial entity’ not party to proceedings. Furthermore, the requested information ‘simply does not exist’ and/or is not in possession of the claimant or their solicitor.

Defendant lawyers said the paying party should be able to understand what they are being asked to pay, and the onus was on the claimant to be open and clear about costs and justify them.

The judge said the sum involved raised immediate concerns about proportionality, and a breakdown of the constituent parts would assist a costs judge in any assessment.

He added: ‘The defendant is reasonably entitled to be in a position to know what the calculated basis of the disbursement is, in order that it may accept or challenge it as appropriate.

‘I conclude that the information the defendant seeks is reasonably necessary for it to understand the claimant’s claim to the disbursement and for the defendant to prepare its own case in response.’

The court ordered that unless a response to the breakdown requests was provided by a specified date, the disbursement would be assessed down to £1,500 plus VAT.

Following the decision, Ben Millns, costs draftsperson for Kennedys, who represented the defendant, said: ‘We have been pursuing these points for some time and whilst it remains that there is no binding authority, the tide appears to be turning towards common sense and transparency.’

Premex has not commented publicly on any of the cases where it has been asked for a breakdown.

This article is now closed for comment.