A new judgment may begin the process of resolving the contentious issue of medical agencies refusing to disclose their fees. In a personal injury case, JXX v Archibald, medical reporting organisation Medical and Professional Services Limited (MAPS) had refused to produce a breakdown of its experts’ fees after the defendant challenged the costs.

The disputed fees amounted to around £121,000. MAPS had said the breakdown of its fees was ‘unimportant and misleading’ when considering the cost of obtaining expert evidence, as well as being confidential. The company’s refusal to provide a breakdown was a particular problem for claimant firm Thompsons, which had said that the information had been requested from MAPS and would be provided upon receipt.

However Costs Judge Rowley concluded the claimant’s side would be given a choice: invoices could be assessed on the basis of the expert’s evidence and MAPS’ work in obtaining it, or on the basis there had been no MAPS involvement and that the fees claimed were solely for the expert’s evidence. At the end of the period allowed for choosing, the defendant would be entitled to produce any evidence they wished to rely on to challenge whether the fees were justified.

Read more

The issue of the breakdown of medical agency fees has long been a hot topic in the personal injury sector. As far back as Stringer v Copley in 2002, the court ruled that medical agencies fees were recoverable, provided it was demonstrated that charges did not exceed the reasonable costs of the work if it had been done by solicitors.

But the relative calm which followed that decision was disrupted by the ruling in Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust v Hoskin in 2023, where the High Court found that a breakdown of a medical agency note should be provided, otherwise the disbursement would be assessed at nil. Since then, different courts have grappled with the issue and produced different outcomes. The Hoskin decision was appealed and authoritative decision of the higher courts was expected to give guidance, but the appeal did not go ahead.

Rowley said that guidance was still needed and he told the parties that if either wished to seek to take this matter further then he will give them permission to appeal.