EWJ 60 April 2025 web - Journal - Page 51
High Court Wades in on
Expert Agency Fees
by Kelvin Farmaner, Partner, Trethowans LLP
fees,
clinical negligence cases approaches the collation of
particularly where Medical Reporting Organisations
expert evidence and the subsequent question of cost
or MRO’s (also known as agencies) are used, are not
recovery.
Disputes
as
to
the
recoverability
of
experts
new. I wrote about this very topic for Expert Witness
In this case the Claimant was involved in a road traf-
back in 2023 following the widely reported decision
fic accident, and he suffered severe injuries. The
in the case of Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust v
Claimant's solicitors used the agency called Medical
Hoskin 2023. In that case His Honour Judge Bird, sit-
and Professional Services Limited (MAPS) in order to
ting at Manchester County Court noted the governing
obtain expert evidence. The Defendant disputed the
provision now is CPR PD 47, and in particular para-
fees claimed by MAPS. A breakdown of the experts'
graph 5.2, which states that a party on assessment
fees and agency charges was requested but not pro-
must serve copies of the fee notes of any expert in re-
vided.
spect of fees claimed in the bill. Premex was said not
The
disputed
fees
from
MAPS
totalled
£120,946.00 including VAT.
to be an expert so this is not complied with by serving
a copy of their fee note alone. He decided that a party
The Court’s decision was to put the Claimant to their
must therefore provide the fee note of the expert in-
election as to whether to: (a) provide a breakdown of
structed and, where such costs are claimed, details of
the expert and agency fees, allowing assessment of
the costs of any MRO. As that decision was at first in-
both components, or (b) have the fees assessed solely
stance it was hoped at the time that authoritative guid-
on the basis of the expert evidence, disregarding the
ance would be given on appeal. However, the appeal
agency’s work.
in that case did not go ahead and the opportunity for
approach they wish to take the Defendant will then be
more authoritative guidance was therefore missed.
given
an
Once the Claimant decides which
opportunity
to
provide
comparative
evidence in response.
However, in the recent decision of JXX v Archibald
SCCO, 17 January 2025, the High Court has waded in
Author
with a very interesting decision which is likely to im-
Kelvin Farmaner
Partner, Trethowans LLP
pact how everyone involved in personal injury and
Dr Ian Starke
Consultant Physician in Stroke Medicine and Geriatric Medicine
MSc, MD, FRCP, AFFLM.
Dr Starke practiced as a Consultant Physician in Stroke Medicine, Geriatric Medicine
and General Medicine at University Hospital Lewisham and Guy’s King’s and St Thomas’
School of Medicine from 1988
He provides expert reports for clinical negligence and medical injury cases in stroke medicine
and geriatric medicine and on fitness to practice.
He provides expert clinical assessments as required both within and outside London,
including virtual assessments where appropriate.
Contact:
11 Queen's Court, 25-27 Earl's Court Square, London SW5 9DA
Telephone 07967 032 541 - Email: ianstarke@nhs.net
EXPERT WITNESS
JOURNAL
49
APRIL
2025
