Personal injury
HLA v LXA(1), EUI(2), Premex Services Limited(TP) and JXX v Archibald [2026]
Slater and Gordon, a leading consumer and personal injury law firm, acted for both HLA and Premex in the case of HLA v LXA(1), EUI(2), Premex Services Limited(TP) and JXX v Archibald [2026], in which Judgment was handed down on 17.03.2026 in the SCCO by Senior Costs Judge Rowley.
Slater and Gordon, a leading consumer and personal injury law firm, acted for both HLA and Premex in the case of HLA v LXA(1), EUI(2), Premex Services Limited(TP) and JXX v Archibald [2026], in which Judgment was handed down on 17.03.2026 in the SCCO by Senior Costs Judge Rowley.
Judge Rowley considered the recoverability of medical expert’s fees obtained with the specialist input of MROs (Medical Reporting Organisations). Slater and Gordon advised HLA and Premex as part of addressing recent challenges to medical expert’s fees by paying parties; and the impact this may have on Claimants’ ability to afford the evidence they require to successfully pursue their cases.
Slater and Gordon is pleased that Judge Rowley’s decision dismissed the Defendant’s arguments on the pivotal legal issues. The Judgment makes clear that the work done by MRO’s are a disbursement, rather than outsourced solicitor work as the Defendant had argued.
Judge Rowley also confirms that MRO’s fees do not contain ‘any irrecoverable funding cost’ and that the detailed breakdown of the MRO’s fees, which have been argued for by the Defendant in this case and beyond, is not required.
The above findings align with the evidence presented by Slater and Gordon and Premex, in that the full service offered by MRO’s play a crucial role in the personal injury market.
Adam Fenton, Solicitor at Slater and Gordon acting on behalf of HLA and Premex:
“We are pleased that Senior Costs Judge Rowley has once again confirmed that MROs play an important role in the personal injury market. Further, we are pleased that the Judge accepted our submissions that MRO fees do not include ‘irrecoverable funding costs’ and that MRO fees are properly claimed as a disbursement rather than outsourced solicitor work.
“We note the conclusion that an MRO’s services should be limited to the equivalent of 25% of the expert’s fee. This figure was not put forward by either side in their evidence and is not supported by the market for these services. We are therefore concerned by the impact this may have on our clients, with the Judge indicating that fees above 25% may ultimately be borne by them.”
Madelene Holdsworth, Managing Director at Slater and Gordon:
“Our relationship with key MROs such as Premex enables us to offer Claimants access to a nationwide network of experienced experts. We are considering the Judgment in further detail with our clients and the other parties involved in the case. Defendants have deep pockets when defending cases and we are keen to ensure that Claimants continue to have access to high quality expert evidence to enable them to pursue their cases with the ‘equality of arms’ required to ensure justice. We are considering whether this Judgment facilitates that aim.”