Background
The judgment addressed costs consequences arising from earlier proceedings over fees charged by medical reporting organisations, or MROs, as part of medical disbursements. After Senior Costs Judge Rowley delivered the substantive judgment on 17 March 2026, all parties received permission to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal. The court nevertheless proceeded to determine costs pending those appeals.
The disputed costs concerned Scott Archibald’s application requiring JXX to elect whether to provide information about the MRO component of the medical fees, the joinder of Medical and Professional Services Limited and Premex Services Limited as third parties, a confidential-disclosure application, and the broader MRO litigation culminating in the November 2025 hearing. In the substantive decision, the court had rejected both the defendants’ proposed “Stringer cap” and the claimants’ contention that each medical fee was a unitary disbursement requiring no breakdown, while allowing recoveries for the MROs subject to a limitation described by the parties as a 25% cap.
The Court’s Holding
The court treated the MRO dispute as resembling a standalone application and applied the costs-follow-the-event approach under CPR 44.2 rather than relying primarily on the presumption for detailed-assessment costs in CPR 47.20. It held that the claimants and the joined MROs were the successful parties overall because they prevailed on most disputed issues and obtained payment that the defendants otherwise would not have made. The approximately 40% reduction in the claimed MRO fees, the parties’ settlement offers, and the evidential issues did not justify reducing their costs recovery.
Accordingly, the court awarded the claimants and MROs their general costs of the MRO proceedings without a percentage reduction, including the costs of the joinder applications. The confidential-disclosure costs were made costs in the case, which under the existing result placed them with the claimants and MROs. Archibald, however, was awarded his costs of the earlier disclosure application because he had succeeded in requiring separation of the MRO charges from the experts’ fees and the provision of evidence concerning those charges.
The claimants’ costs were ordered to be assessed on the standard basis by detailed assessment if not agreed, rather than summarily assessed, given their scale and the specific challenges raised. Because every party was seeking some alteration of the substantive decision on appeal, the court declined to order any payment on account of costs.
Key Takeaways
- Success for costs purposes was assessed by the litigation’s overall outcome: the claimants and MROs obtained payments and prevailed on most issues despite losing on the 25% cap.
- A substantial reduction in claimed MRO fees did not displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event or warrant a percentage reduction in the successful parties’ recovery.
- Costs were allocated separately for distinct applications: Archibald recovered the disclosure-application costs, while the claimants and MROs received the general, joinder, and presently applicable confidential-disclosure costs.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the Senior Courts Costs Office may identify the successful party in complex costs litigation where neither side wins every argument. Securing a monetary recovery and prevailing on most substantive issues can determine overall success even when the amount claimed is materially reduced.
It also shows that discrete interlocutory applications may carry their own costs consequences and that exceptionally large or contested costs claims arising from assessment proceedings may themselves require detailed assessment. The orders remain exposed to possible revision following the pending appeals.