Medical Agency Fees After JXX: Breakdowns and Part 18

Find A Course
Medical Agency Fees After JXX: Breakdowns, Markups and Part 18 Requests

Medical Agency Fees After JXX: Breakdowns, Markups and Part 18 Requests

Where medico legal reporting fees stand after JXX and MIB v Santiago: whether a breakdown is required, the 25 per cent markup, and how paying parties

No of Students Enrolled ( 0 )

with Datalaw Team

Get Access to this course and +800 Courses For

99 / Month Per User

Training for 5+ people? See our package deals below for more info

169

See Brochure

Description

Medical agency fees have been fought over in the county courts for six years, with judges reaching flatly contradictory conclusions on the same question: does a receiving party have to break down the agency element of a medico legal invoice? Two decisions of Senior Costs Judge Rowley in JXX v Archibald have now answered it, and satisfied nobody.

James Miller, costs barrister at 18 St John Street Chambers, has been arguing this point since the beginning. He traces the line from Stringer v Copley, where HHJ Cook said the constituent elements should be particularised, through the era of unless orders and 75 per cent reductions, to Rowley's conclusion that no breakdown is required, that the fees are a disbursement rather than outsourced solicitor's work, and that a markup of 25 per cent would nonetheless be reasonable.

He then covers MIB v Santiago on translation fees, which reached the same destination by a different route while leaving the door open where abuse is suspected, and sets out what paying parties are actually doing now: still requesting breakdowns, still issuing Part 23 applications, and offering the court three species of JXX order. The competing arguments on both sides are laid out in full, along with the Part 18 jurisdiction points that decide most of these applications.

Key Takeaways

- What Rowley actually decided in JXX 1 and JXX 2, and why every party to it is appealing
- Why treating the fee as a disbursement rather than outsourced solicitor's work displaces Stringer v Copley, and what that means if it survives
- How the standard basis burden works against a receiving party that serves a laconic invoice
- The three forms of order paying parties are now asking for, from the old unless order to the JXX 2 approach of a 50 per cent reduction assessed as direct expert fees
- Why an ignored or opaque Part 18 response is the single biggest reason orders get made, and what the practice direction requires instead
- How MIB v Santiago leaves room to call for an explanation in a low value case with a high reporting fee

What you'll learn

1. Explain the effect of JXX 1 and JXX 2 on whether a breakdown of medical agency fees is required, and the grounds on which both sides are appealing.
2. Apply the standard basis burden of proof to a medico legal invoice that gives a single bold figure.
3. Draft a Part 18 request and a Part 23 application seeking a JXX type order, using the wide power in CPR 18.1 and the protection in CPR 18.2.
4. Respond to a Part 18 request in a way that complies with the practice direction and avoids an adverse order.

Requirements

Watch the recorded webinar and review any supporting documentation

Who is the target audience?

Costs lawyers, costs draftspeople and costs counsel conducting detailed assessment proceedings. Personal injury and clinical negligence solicitors on both the claimant and defendant side. Insurers, compensators and claims handlers dealing with medico legal reporting spend. Litigation supervisors and anyone responsible for disbursement recovery or challenge.

Course Content

Text

Recorded Webinar

00:30:00

KeyWords

medical agency fees, medical agency, medico legal agency, medico legal reporting, medical reporting organisation, MRO fees, CPR Part 18, part 18 request, detailed assessment costs, detailed assessment proceedings, bill of costs, standard basis costs, disbursements, costs litigation, costs lawyer, costs draftsman, JXX v Archibald, MIB v Santiago, Stringer v Copley

Instructor

Datalaw Team

18384 Users
1688 Courses
984 Reviews

Reviews

No more reviews to load

Popular Categories

CPD Memberships

Popular Bundles

Candidate Links

Police Station

Magistrates Court Qualification

SRO Preparation

CQS Core Accreditation

CQS Reaccreditation

Legal Pathways

Conveyancing Pathways

Data Apprenticeships

Resources