The JXX v Archibald Decision Explained: What It Means for Clinical Negligence Claims

The High Court decision in JXX v Archibald [2026] EWHC 630 has introduced an important and practical development in clinical negligence litigation: the capping of Medical Reporting Organisation (MRO) fees. While the case may appear procedural at first glance, its implications are significant - particularly for costs management, expert instruction, and how medico-legal evidence is obtained.

For solicitors, especially those acting for claimants and defendants in personal injury and clinical negligence claims, this decision provides clarity on recoverable costs and reinforces the court’s focus on proportionality and transparency.

What are MRO fees and why do they matter?

Medical Reporting Organisations (MROs) act as intermediaries between legal professionals and medical experts. They typically handle the administration of expert instruction, including sourcing appropriate clinicians, arranging reports, and managing logistics.

Historically, MRO fees have included both:

• The expert’s fee for preparing the report

• An additional administrative charge for arranging the instruction

While this model has been widely used, concerns have grown around cost inflation, lack of transparency, and whether these additional fees are always reasonable or recoverable.

The decision in JXX v Archibald directly addresses this issue.

The key issue in JXX v Archibald

At the centre of the case was a dispute over whether MRO administrative fees should be recoverable as part of legal costs, and if so, to what extent.

The court was asked to determine whether these charges were:

• Reasonable and proportionate

• Properly incurred

• Recoverable in addition to the expert’s own fee

This is particularly relevant in lower-value and fixed-cost cases, where cost control is a central feature of the litigation framework.

The court’s decision: a clear move towards cost control

The High Court took a firm stance, signalling that MRO fees cannot be treated as automatically recoverable in full. Instead, the court emphasised that costs must be both reasonable and proportionate.

The practical outcome of the decision is that:

• MRO fees are now effectively capped or restricted

• Only reasonable elements of those fees may be recoverable

• The court will scrutinise whether the use of an MRO was necessary in the first place

This reflects a broader judicial trend towards tightening cost recovery and ensuring that parties do not incur unnecessary or inflated expenses.

Why this decision matters for solicitors

For solicitors, the implications are immediate and practical. The way expert evidence is sourced and managed now has a direct impact on cost recovery.

This decision encourages a more considered approach to expert instruction. It raises important questions about whether using an MRO is always appropriate, or whether direct instruction of experts may be more cost-effective and defensible.

Key implications include greater scrutiny of expert-related costs - courts are likely to examine not just the expert’s fee, but the method of instruction and any associated charges. Increased importance of proportionality - costs must be justified in the context of the claim’s value and complexity. Potential shift away from MRO reliance - solicitors may increasingly consider instructing experts directly to avoid unrecoverable fees.

This does not mean that MROs are no longer useful - but their role must now be carefully justified.

Impact on clinical negligence cases

Although the case has strong relevance in personal injury litigation, the principles are equally applicable to clinical negligence claims - particularly those involving multiple experts or complex evidential requirements.

Clinical negligence cases often rely heavily on expert evidence, including:

• Nursing experts

• Medical specialists

• Care and occupational therapy experts

Given the potential scale of expert involvement, costs can quickly escalate. The JXX v Archibald decision reinforces the need for careful cost management from the outset.

For claimant solicitors, there is a risk that certain costs may no longer be recoverable if they are deemed excessive or unnecessary. For defendants, the decision provides a stronger basis to challenge disproportionate expert-related costs.

Practical steps for solicitors moving forward

In light of this decision, solicitors should review how they approach expert instruction and cost management. A more strategic and transparent approach will be essential.

Some key considerations include:

• Assess whether an MRO is necessary - In some cases, direct instruction of an expert may be more efficient and cost-effective.

• Ensure full transparency of fees - Clearly distinguish between the expert’s fee and any administrative charges.

• Document justification for costs incurred - Be prepared to explain why a particular approach was taken and why it was reasonable.

By taking these steps, solicitors can reduce the risk of costs being challenged or disallowed.

The growing importance of expert sourcing

One of the broader implications of JXX v Archibald is the increasing importance of how experts are sourced. The court is not only interested in the quality of expert evidence, but also in the process used to obtain it.

This places greater emphasis on:

• Choosing appropriately qualified experts from the outset

• Avoiding unnecessary layers of administration

• Ensuring that the instruction process is efficient and proportionate

For many firms, this may lead to a shift towards working with specialist expert providers who offer transparent, fixed, or controlled fee structures.

How Apex Experts supports solicitors

At Apex Experts, we recognise the changing landscape following decisions such as JXX v Archibald. Cost transparency and proportionality are now more important than ever.

We support solicitors by:

• Providing direct access to carefully vetted nurse and healthcare expert witnesses

• Ensuring clear, upfront fee structures with no hidden administrative costs

• Delivering high-quality, CPR-compliant reports efficiently

• Supporting cost-effective case management from instruction through to trial

Our approach aligns with the court’s expectations - focusing on clarity, reasonableness, and defensible expert evidence.

Final thoughts

The decision in JXX v Archibald [2026] EWHC 630 is a significant development in the ongoing effort to control litigation costs. By placing limits on the recoverability of MRO fees, the court has reinforced the importance of proportionality and transparency in expert instruction.

For solicitors, the message is clear: how you obtain expert evidence matters just as much as the evidence itself.

By adopting a strategic approach to expert sourcing, carefully managing costs, and working with transparent providers, solicitors can ensure that their cases remain both strong and commercially viable.