JXX v Archibald [2026] EWHC 630: Medical Agency Fees Remain Under the Spotlight Following Grounds of Appeal

The decision in JXX v Archibald [2026] EWHC 630 (SCCO) was already shaping up to be one of the most significant recent decisions concerning the recoverability of Medical Reporting Organisation (“MRO”) fees.

Now, following the filing of Grounds of Appeal by both parties, the issues raised by the judgment are likely to remain firmly at the forefront of costs litigation for some time.

The case has generated substantial discussion across the claimant and defendant sectors alike, particularly given its potential implications for the recoverability of expert agency charges in high-value personal injury and clinical negligence litigation.

Background

The dispute concerned the recoverability of fees charged by MROs in connection with the obtaining and administration of expert medical evidence.

Whilst the underlying expert fees themselves were largely agreed, the parties disagreed over the additional agency charges levied by the MROs.

Historically, disputes of this nature have often been approached through the lens of Stringer v Copley (2002), which led to the development of the so-called “Stringer Cap” — an approach which broadly sought to compare agency charges against what a solicitor might reasonably have charged for carrying out the same work internally.

In practice, this frequently resulted in detailed disputes concerning:

• the extent of work actually undertaken by agencies;
• whether charges represented irrecoverable administrative overheads;
• and whether sufficient breakdowns had been provided to justify the sums claimed.

The SCCO’s Decision

Senior Costs Judge Rowley adopted a significantly different approach.

MRO Fees as Recoverable Disbursements

The Court held that MRO fees are properly characterised as disbursements, rather than outsourced solicitor profit costs.

The judgment recognised that MROs provide genuine administrative and logistical services in coordinating medical evidence, particularly within large-scale and complex litigation.

Importantly, the Court moved away from attempting to directly equate MRO charging structures with those of solicitors’ firms.

Rejection of the Traditional “Stringer” Approach

One of the most notable aspects of the decision was the Court’s rejection of the need for solicitor-style fee breakdowns.

Senior Costs Judge Rowley considered that requiring agencies to retrospectively justify their charges through detailed time recording exercises was artificial and commercially unrealistic.

Instead, the Court favoured a broader assessment of overall reasonableness and proportionality.

Deferred Payment Arrangements

The Court also rejected arguments that deferred payment arrangements or write-off risk rendered the charges irrecoverable as funding costs.

This aspect of the decision is likely to be particularly significant for claimant firms and agencies operating within deferred payment models.

The 25% Cap

Perhaps the most commercially important aspect of the judgment was the Court’s conclusion that a 25% mark-up represented the reasonable limit recoverable between the parties.

Whilst not framed as a rigid rule applicable in every conceivable case, the judgment is likely to be relied upon heavily by paying parties seeking to challenge higher uplifts moving forward.

Practical Implications

The decision has potentially wide-ranging consequences for:

• claimant firms;
• defendant insurers;
• costs practitioners;
• and MROs themselves.

For paying parties, the judgment provides a clearer and more straightforward framework for challenging substantial agency uplifts without requiring extensive disclosure disputes.

For receiving parties, however, the judgment creates obvious concerns regarding the recoverability of existing charging structures, particularly in cases involving extensive expert evidence across multiple disciplines.

The decision may also have broader commercial implications for how medical evidence is sourced and managed within high-value litigation.

The Proposed Appeal

The significance of the judgment has now increased further following the filing of Grounds of Appeal by both parties.

This is perhaps unsurprising given the substantial financial and practical implications of the decision across the litigation sector.

Potential appellate consideration may include:

• the proper characterisation of MRO fees;
• the continued relevance (or otherwise) of the Stringer approach;
• the treatment of deferred payment models;
• and the legitimacy of the proposed 25% cap.

Senior Costs Judge Rowley himself observed within the judgment that:

“The questions posed in these cases have been aired for more than two decades now without any directly relevant High Court or higher decisions… I imagine that one, or possibly both, sides will wish to seek that determinative decision.”

For now, however, JXX v Archibald is likely to remain the most significant modern SCCO decision concerning the assessment of medical agency fees, with the issues raised by the judgment likely to continue generating substantial debate across the costs litigation sector pending further appellate guidance.

Blackstone Legal Costing regularly advises in relation to complex disputes concerning expert evidence, recoverability, proportionality, and detailed assessment strategy in high-value litigation.

If you would like to discuss the potential impact of JXX v Archibald on ongoing costs disputes, please feel free to get in touch.

Article dated: 01/07/2026

Rebecca Humble 

Costs Lawyer/Founder