MRO Fee Recovery Cap Set at 25% Following Landmark Costs Ruling

A significant costs judgment is set to reshape how medical evidence is funded in personal injury and clinical negligence litigation. In JXX v Archibald, Senior Costs Judge Rowley departed from the two-decade-old Stringer v Copley authority, ruling that Medical Reporting Organisation (MRO) fees should be treated as disbursements rather than outsourced solicitor work — and capping recoverable mark-up on expert fees at 25%, well below the 30–53% typically charged.

As Bond Solon notes, the ruling marks “a significant shift in how Medical Reporting Organisation (MRO) fees are treated in costs recovery,” with the court unpersuaded that market competition or MRO business realities justified higher mark-ups.
The decision is being appealed by both parties — Premex’s appeal targets the 25% cap specifically — but in the interim it is expected to carry, in the words of costs barrister Nicola Shaldon (4 New Square), “significant persuasive weight given the seniority of the costs judge.”

Why it matters for our panel: Members instructed via an MRO rather than directly by solicitors should be aware that some agencies have already begun passing costs downstream through higher fees or new service charges. Bond Solon reports “great concern among experts,” with medical expert witness Dr Duncan Dymond warning of a risk that experienced experts move away from MRO instructions toward direct solicitor engagement.

For claimants, the practical risk is a shortfall between an MRO’s actual mark-up and the recoverable cap — a gap that could come out of damages — alongside longer-term concerns about access to the nationwide expert network MROs currently sustain.
We will monitor the outcome of the pending appeal and update panel members on any change to the 25% benchmark.

Source: Bond Solon, June 2026