JXX v Archibald: Is the Recoverable MRO Mark-Up Now Capped at 25%?

The decision in JXX v Archibald II [2026] EWHC 630 (SCCO) has created a significant new battleground in claimant costs.

Senior Costs Judge Rowley held that charges made by a Medical Reporting Organisation should be treated as disbursements rather than outsourced solicitors’ work. He also concluded that, on the evidence before the court, a mark-up of 25% of the underlying expert invoice represented the maximum reasonable amount recoverable between the parties.

For claimant firms, the immediate question is: are all MRO mark-ups now capped at 25%?

The careful answer is: not as a universal statutory rule, but 25% is now a powerful first-instance benchmark that paying parties are likely to rely upon in detailed assessment.

The judgment is not an appellate authority. It arose from the particular evidence in two conjoined assessments, and an appeal has been reported as pending. Nevertheless, until there is contrary higher authority, claimant firms should expect any MRO mark-up above 25% to be challenged.

What Is a Medical Reporting Organisation?

A Medical Reporting Organisation, usually referred to as an MRO, acts as an intermediary between the solicitor and the medical expert. Depending on the provider and the case, an MRO may:

• identify suitable experts;
• maintain an expert database;
• arrange medical appointments;
• obtain medical records;
• manage report timescales;
• carry out administrative checks;
• deal with amendments and queries;
• coordinate expert availability;
• monitor compliance;
• arrange deferred payment;
• provide write-off or waiver arrangements in unsuccessful matters;
• and issue a combined or separate invoice.

MROs are commonly used in personal injury, clinical negligence, industrial disease, serious injury and road traffic claims.

The difficulty arises because the amount invoiced may include both the underlying expert’s charge and an additional fee or mark-up retained by the MRO. The recoverability of that additional element has been disputed for more than two decades.

What Was JXX v Archibald About?

The judgment concerned two cases heard together:

• JXX v Archibald and another, involving Medical and Professional Services Limited, known as MAPS; and
• HLA v LXA and others, involving Premex Services Limited.

By the time of the hearing, the wider bills had largely been resolved. The remaining dispute concerned the fees attributable to the MROs. The experts’ own charges had already been agreed. The court therefore had to determine:

• whether MRO charges were outsourced solicitors’ work or disbursements;
• whether a detailed time-style breakdown was required;
• whether deferred payment and write-off facilities contained irrecoverable funding costs;
• and what level of MRO mark-up was reasonable between the parties.

What Was the Previous Stringer Approach?

Before JXX, paying parties commonly relied on Stringer v Copley.

The approach associated with Stringer treated the MRO’s administrative work as comparable to work that could have been undertaken by the instructing solicitor. The receiving party was therefore expected to distinguish:

• the expert’s own fee;
• the MRO’s administrative charge;
• and the work said to justify that additional charge.

The MRO charge would generally be tested against the reasonable and proportionate cost of the solicitor carrying out equivalent work. This became known as the Stringer Cap. In practice, it led to repeated disputes about breakdowns, time spent, hourly rates, the nature of each administrative task, whether the MRO had duplicated the solicitor’s work, and whether the receiving party had provided enough information. JXX rejected that method.

MRO Fees Are Disbursements, Not Outsourced Profit Costs

Senior Costs Judge Rowley held that MRO charges should be treated as disbursements. The court considered:

• the nature of the work;
• whether it was properly solicitors’ work;
• and where responsibility for the relevant work lay.

The administrative work carried out by MROs was not treated as fee-earning legal work. Responsibility for producing the medical evidence ultimately rested with the expert, rather than the solicitor. The MRO charge was therefore not to be treated as outsourced solicitors’ profit costs.

This is an important point for claimant firms. It means the recoverability exercise is not based on reconstructing a fictional solicitor time ledger and comparing the MRO’s business activities with what a legal fee earner might have charged.

Does the MRO Still Need to Provide a Breakdown?

The traditional quasi-solicitor breakdown is no longer the correct test under JXX. An MRO does not have to recreate its business operation as if it had recorded six-minute units in the manner of a solicitor. However, this does not mean that the invoice can remain opaque. The receiving party should still be able to identify:

• the expert’s underlying fee;
• the separate MRO charge;
• the percentage mark-up;
• VAT treatment;
• and what invoice total is being claimed.

The judgment itself suggested that stating the percentage mark-up clearly on the MRO invoice would assist receiving parties, paying parties, costs judges and the assessment process generally. The practical distinction is: a solicitor-style time breakdown may no longer be required, but transparency over the expert fee and MRO mark-up remains essential.

Why Did the Court Choose 25%?

The evidence showed that the MROs used different percentage mark-ups. Premex commonly applied mark-ups of 35% or 45%. MAPS most commonly applied a mark-up of 53%, with other examples ranging from 20% to 104%.

The court was not persuaded that those percentages were driven by the requirements of the individual case. Instead, the variations appeared to reflect:

• commercial relationships;
• portfolio arrangements;
• wider business models;
• and the economics of the MRO’s overall work.

Those arrangements may be commercially legitimate between the solicitor and MRO. However, they do not automatically determine what is reasonable for the paying party to bear. After considering the evidence, the judge adopted 25% as the reasonable maximum recoverable mark-up between the parties. Any lower contractual percentage would remain limited to that lower amount. In other words:

• a 20% contractual mark-up would not become 25%;
• a 25% mark-up might be recoverable, subject to ordinary assessment;
• a 35%, 45% or 53% mark-up would generally be reduced to 25% under the JXX approach.

What Does the 25% Apply To?

The judgment adopted a practical approach. The 25% mark-up applies to the whole expert invoice, including:

• the expert’s professional fee;
• travel;
• and related disbursement elements within the expert invoice.

The judge considered that applying the percentage only to selected parts would create unnecessary complexity and could simply lead to higher percentages being claimed elsewhere. Claimant firms should therefore check exactly what forms the underlying invoice total.

Is 25% Now a Binding Cap?

Not in the same way as a fixed recoverable costs rule or statutory tariff. JXX is a decision of the Senior Costs Judge sitting in the Senior Courts Costs Office. It is highly persuasive, especially in costs proceedings, but it is not a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court authority. It should therefore be described carefully. The safer formulation is: JXX adopts a maximum reasonable MRO mark-up of 25% between the parties on the evidence before the court.

It should not be described as though Parliament or the Civil Procedure Rules have imposed an absolute tariff applicable in every case. However, the commercial reality is clear. Paying parties are likely to use 25% as the starting point for Points of Dispute, negotiations, provisional assessments, detailed assessment hearings and offers. A claimant seeking more than 25% will now face a difficult evidential and legal argument unless and until the position changes on appeal.

Is an Appeal Pending?

An appeal has been reported as pending. That matters because the judgment introduces a new percentage-based approach after more than 20 years of litigation based around Stringer. An appeal may consider:

• whether a costs judge can impose a general percentage ceiling;
• whether 25% was properly supported by the evidence;
• whether broader policy considerations should have carried more weight;
• whether the market requires a different approach;
• and whether the MRO business model can be assessed through an inter partes percentage cap.

Until any appeal is decided, claimant firms should work on the basis that JXX is likely to be relied upon in assessments. The article and any internal costs guidance should be reviewed when an appellate judgment is handed down.

What Happened to the Funding Costs Argument?

The defendants argued that elements of the MRO charges reflected:

• deferred payment;
• credit;
• write-off arrangements;
• or other funding services.

They contended that those elements were irrecoverable funding costs. The court rejected that broad argument. Delayed payment is a normal feature of claimant litigation. Experts, MROs and solicitors often receive payment only after the claim or costs dispute concludes. The payment and waiver arrangements in issue were treated as part of the wider commercial market rather than a separately identifiable, irrecoverable funding charge.

This aspect of JXX is helpful to claimant firms. The court did not disallow the whole MRO fee merely because the provider offered deferred payment, staged payment or a write-off facility. However, that did not mean the full mark-up claimed was reasonable. The court separated whether the MRO charge was recoverable in principle, and how much was reasonable between the parties.

Is JXX a Claimant or Defendant Victory?

It is mixed.

Helpful to claimants

The court held that:

• MRO fees are recoverable as disbursements;
• they are not outsourced solicitors’ profit costs;
• the Stringer time-comparison approach is not the correct test;
• a solicitor-style task breakdown is not required;
• deferred payment and waiver facilities do not automatically make the charge an irrecoverable funding cost;
• and the fees should not simply be assessed at nil.

Helpful to defendants

The court also held that:

• the full mark-up is not automatically recoverable;
• market pricing does not determine inter partes reasonableness;
• contractual arrangements between solicitors and MROs do not bind the paying party;
• percentages above 25% were not justified on the evidence;
• and any excess above 25% may fall elsewhere.

That excess may become an issue between the claimant, the solicitor and the MRO.

What Does JXX Mean for Claimant Solicitors?

The practical consequences should be addressed immediately.

Review MRO contracts

Firms should check:

• what percentage the MRO charges;
• whether the percentage varies by expert;
• whether it applies to VAT;
• whether it applies to travel or other disbursements;
• who bears any shortfall;
• whether the MRO can recover the balance from the client;
• whether the solicitor has agreed to meet the shortfall;
• and what happens in unsuccessful cases.

A contractual fee above 25% may still be payable even if it is not fully recoverable inter partes.

Review client care wording

The retainer and client care documents should explain how expert evidence is obtained, whether an MRO may be used, whether the MRO charges more than the expert, whether all of that charge is expected to be recovered, and who is responsible for any shortfall. A failure to address the issue may lead to complaints, solicitor-client assessment disputes, deductions from damages issues, or commercial conflict with the MRO.

Consider direct expert instruction

JXX does not say solicitors must stop using MROs. MROs may provide valuable administration, expert sourcing, appointment management, quality control, deferred payment and portfolio support. But the firm should consider whether using an MRO remains proportionate on the individual case. In some matters, direct instruction may be cheaper. In others, the MRO’s services may justify the additional cost. The decision should be commercial and file-specific.

Obtain transparent invoices

Before serving the bill, obtain an invoice that clearly identifies the expert fee, the MRO fee, the percentage used, VAT, travel, other disbursements and the total. An invoice that conceals the expert’s fee within a single global figure is likely to attract challenge.

What Does JXX Mean for Clinical Negligence Costs?

Clinical negligence claims often require several experts across different disciplines. A file may involve breach of duty, causation, condition and prognosis, life expectancy, care, accommodation, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, neuropsychology, psychiatry, employment and quantum evidence.

If an MRO applies a significant mark-up to every expert invoice, the total disputed sum may become substantial. For example, a 45% mark-up across a large body of expert evidence could create a major shortfall if assessment limits recovery to 25%. Claimant clinical negligence costs drafting should therefore:

• review MRO terms at the beginning of the case;
• budget for the mark-up properly;
• identify whether the costs budget includes the gross MRO charge;
• consider whether a budget approval protects the amount claimed;
• ensure invoices are transparent;
• and monitor the appeal.

JXX is particularly relevant to clinical negligence costs because expert disbursements can form a large part of the overall bill.

Does an Approved Costs Budget Guarantee Recovery?

No. An approved costs budget is highly relevant, but it does not automatically guarantee recovery of every underlying disbursement. The court may still examine:

• whether the cost was reasonably incurred;
• whether the amount is reasonable;
• whether there is good reason to depart from the approved budget;
• whether the invoice reflects the budgeted item;
• and whether the MRO mark-up is separately recoverable.

Claimant firms should avoid assuming that approval of a phase total automatically validates an undisclosed or excessive mark-up. The safest approach is to identify the MRO element clearly during budgeting where it is significant.

How Should MRO Fees Be Shown in a Bill of Costs?

The bill should avoid presenting the entire invoice as though it were solely the expert’s professional charge. The drafting should identify:

• the expert’s name;
• discipline;
• nature of the report or attendance;
• expert’s underlying fee;
• MRO charge;
• percentage mark-up;
• VAT treatment;
• total claimed;
• and any relevant court order or budget phase.

Where possible, attach or retain the expert invoice, the MRO invoice, the terms of engagement, confirmation of the percentage and any relevant fee quotation. Clarity at the bill stage reduces the scope for broad allegations of concealment or non-disclosure.

How Will Paying Parties Plead the Point?

Claimant firms should expect Points of Dispute along the following lines:

• the MRO mark-up exceeds the 25% maximum adopted in JXX;
• the expert fee and MRO fee have not been separated;
• the invoice is insufficiently transparent;
• the mark-up reflects commercial arrangements rather than case-specific work;
• the amount above 25% is not reasonable or proportionate;
• the receiving party has not justified departure from JXX;
• VAT has been applied incorrectly;
• the underlying expert invoice has not been disclosed;
• the MRO charge duplicates solicitor work.

A strong Reply should not simply state that the invoice was incurred. Incurrence does not establish inter partes reasonableness.

How Should Claimant Firms Reply to an MRO Fee Challenge?

The Reply should address the actual invoice and the current status of JXX. Depending on the facts, it may say:

• the MRO charge is a disbursement;
• no solicitor-style task breakdown is required;
• the expert fee and MRO charge are separately identified;
• the percentage claimed does not exceed 25%;
• the fee was reasonably incurred;
• use of the MRO was proportionate to the requirements of the case;
• the provider delivered identifiable administrative and case-management services;
• deferred payment does not make the fee an irrecoverable funding cost;
• the amount is within any approved or agreed budget;
• the paying party has produced no comparator evidence;
• or the individual circumstances justify a different approach.

If the percentage exceeds 25%, the receiving party must assess the litigation risk honestly. A generic assertion that the entire contractual invoice is recoverable is unlikely to be enough.

Can a Firm Recover More Than 25%?

Possibly, but it will be difficult under the current first-instance position. A receiving party seeking more would need to distinguish the case or challenge the reasoning. Potential arguments might concern:

• materially different evidence;
• a genuinely case-specific service;
• unusual complexity;
• an agreed or approved costs position;
• comparator evidence;
• or the outcome of any appeal.

However, JXX deliberately adopted 25% as a maximum reasonable percentage between the parties. Unless the decision is overturned or distinguished, a claim above 25% carries substantial assessment risk.

What Happens to the Unrecovered Balance?

JXX states that anything above the recoverable amount is a matter between the claimant, the solicitor and the MRO. The practical outcome depends on the contract. The shortfall may be:

• written off by the MRO;
• absorbed by the solicitor;
• payable by the claimant;
• deducted from damages where lawfully permitted;
• or resolved under a commercial arrangement.

Claimant firms should not wait until the end of the case to identify this issue. The liability should be understood before the expert is instructed.

What About Fixed Recoverable Costs Cases?

JXX concerned detailed assessment of MRO charges. In fixed recoverable costs matters, the position may interact with the applicable disbursement rules, portal provisions, fixed medical report fees, reasonableness and the specific scheme governing the claim.

The decision should not be applied mechanically without checking the relevant fixed costs provisions. The key distinction remains the expert fee, the additional MRO charge, and whether the relevant regime permits that additional element.

Practical Checklist for Claimant Firms

Before instructing an MRO:

• check the contractual mark-up;
• confirm whether the percentage can change;
• identify whether it applies to the entire expert invoice;
• check VAT treatment;
• confirm who bears any unrecovered balance;
• review client care wording;
• consider whether direct instruction is practical;
• check the costs budget;
• obtain a clear quotation;
• record why use of the MRO is reasonable.

Before serving the bill:

• obtain the expert’s underlying invoice;
• obtain the MRO invoice;
• separate the two charges;
• calculate the percentage;
• check whether it exceeds 25%;
• confirm VAT treatment;
• check the retainer and indemnity principle;
• compare the charge with the approved budget;
• anticipate Points of Dispute;
• consider a commercial adjustment before service.

After receiving Points of Dispute:

• check whether JXX is relied upon accurately;
• confirm the appeal status;
• review the percentage claimed;
• check whether the entire invoice is transparent;
• assess the recoverability risk;
• prepare a file-specific Reply;
• consider settlement;
• protect the client from an unexpected shortfall.

Common Mistakes After JXX

Treating 25% as an automatic entitlement

A mark-up of 25% is not necessarily recoverable without scrutiny. The fee must still be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.

Treating JXX as a statutory cap

It is a first-instance judgment, not a rule in the CPR.

Hiding the expert fee

The receiving party should be able to identify the expert’s underlying charge.

Ignoring the retainer

A contractual obligation to pay the MRO may remain even where inter partes recovery is lower.

Assuming the budget resolves everything

Budget approval does not remove all assessment issues.

Failing to warn the client

Potential shortfalls should be addressed in the retainer and client care process.

Waiting for detailed assessment

The issue should be considered when the MRO is instructed, not only when Points of Dispute arrive.

Is the 25% Figure Likely to Last?

That remains uncertain. The judgment attempts to provide a practical answer to a problem that has existed for years. Its advantages are obvious:

• simplicity;
• predictable assessment;
• reduced need for artificial time breakdowns;
• easier invoice presentation;
• and greater consistency.

But the criticism is equally clear:

• 25% was not a contractual market standard;
• MRO business models vary;
• services differ;
• the evidence was portfolio-based;
• the cap may affect access to deferred expert evidence;
• and a single percentage may not reflect every case.

The appeal may therefore be highly significant. Until then, claimant firms should not ignore the judgment.

The Main Takeaways From JXX

• MRO charges are disbursements.
• They are not outsourced solicitors’ profit costs.
• The Stringer hypothetical-solicitor approach was rejected.
• A solicitor-style time breakdown is not required.
• The underlying expert fee and MRO charge should still be transparent.
• Deferred payment and waiver facilities are not automatically irrecoverable funding costs.
• Contractual market pricing does not bind the paying party.
• A maximum 25% mark-up was adopted between the parties.
• The percentage applies to the whole expert invoice, including related disbursements.
• A contractual percentage below 25% remains limited to the lower figure.
• Any excess may fall on the claimant, solicitor or MRO.
• The judgment is first instance and an appeal is reported as pending.
• Claimant firms should review MRO contracts, client care wording and budgets now.

How DMD Costs Can Help

DMD Costs assists claimant solicitor firms with clinical negligence, personal injury and other standard-basis costs matters involving expert evidence. We can assist with:

• bills of costs;
• Precedent S electronic bills;
• clinical negligence costs;
• medical expert disbursements;
• MRO fee disputes;
• costs budget review;
• Points of Dispute;
• Replies;
• proportionality arguments;
• detailed assessment preparation;
• and settlement-led costs negotiation.

If an MRO mark-up has been challenged, send us your expert disbursement dispute — the bill, Points of Dispute, expert invoice, MRO invoice, costs budget, relevant retainer documents and offer correspondence. We will review the recoverability position and help identify the most commercial next step. (See also our guide to the Guideline Hourly Rates 2026 and costs-only proceedings under CPR 46.14.)