MIB v Santiago [2026] | What It Means for Access to Justice and Litigation Costs

The recent High Court decision in MIB v Santiago [2026] EWHC 513 (KB) continues a significant line of case law concerning recoverable costs in personal injury litigation, particularly within the fixed costs regime.

The case forms part of the ongoing litigation between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) and the claimant, Santiago, and addresses practical issues surrounding the recovery of interpreter costs where a claimant cannot participate in proceedings without language support.

At Apex Experts, we believe the case highlights an important principle: litigation must remain accessible to all claimants, regardless of language barriers or other practical obstacles to participation.

Background to MIB v Santiago

The claimant, a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian national, was injured in a road traffic accident involving an uninsured driver. As a result, the claim fell under the responsibility of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB).

During the litigation, the claimant required an interpreter to understand the proceedings and provide evidence. A dispute arose over whether the cost of that interpreter could be recovered as a disbursement within the fixed recoverable costs regime under CPR Part 45.

The issue is particularly important because the fixed costs system limits what claimants can recover from defendants, meaning that certain expenses can become contentious.

Earlier decisions in the Santiago litigation established that interpreter costs may be recoverable, recognising that language support can be essential to ensure claimants are able to fully participate in the legal process.

The 2026 High Court judgment continues to address the practical application of those principles within the costs framework.

The Wider Legal Principle: Access to Justice

One of the most important themes emerging from this case is access to justice.

If claimants are unable to communicate effectively in English, refusing to allow recovery of interpreter costs could prevent them from:

• understanding court proceedings

• giving accurate evidence

• instructing their legal representatives effectively.

The courts have therefore taken the view that reasonable interpreter costs may be necessary litigation expenses, rather than optional extras.

From a broader perspective, this decision reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not prevent claimants from properly presenting their case.

What This Means for Personal Injury Litigation

For claimant solicitors and litigation professionals, the case highlights several key points:

1. Properly Justified Disbursements Are Essential

Costs such as interpreters must be reasonable, proportionate and necessary for the conduct of the case. Clear documentation and justification will remain crucial where costs are challenged.

2. The Fixed Costs Regime Continues to Evolve

The fixed recoverable costs system has been subject to ongoing interpretation by the courts. Decisions like Santiago demonstrate that while the regime restricts costs, it must still allow for essential litigation expenses.

3. Practical Barriers to Participation Matter

Courts are increasingly aware of practical barriers that may affect claimants, including:

• language barriers

• cognitive or psychological difficulties

• medical limitations.

Where such barriers exist, reasonable steps to overcome them may be recoverable.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in MIB v Santiago [2026] EWHC 513 (KB) serves as a reminder that the fixed costs framework must still operate in a way that preserves fairness and access to justice.

While disputes over recoverable costs will undoubtedly continue, the case confirms that essential services enabling claimants to participate in proceedings - such as interpreters - can form a legitimate part of litigation costs.

For the legal community, the decision underscores the importance of balancing cost control with fairness, ensuring that the justice system remains accessible to all.