This site uses cookies.

First instance County Court decision disallows medical agency cut of costs claimed in a medical report on the fixed costs regime - Paul Erdunast, Temple Garden Chambers

17/06/21. First instance County Court decision disallows medical agency cut of costs claimed in a medical report on the fixed costs regime: Powles v Hemmings, 23 April 2021, as reported on Civil Litigation Brief. DDJ Akers decided that the markup made by a medical agency on the costs of a medical report was not recoverable. DDJ Akers took the view that the medical agency’s costs are already accounted for in the fixed costs regime.


The background facts to this case are irrelevant to the question before the court. The Claimant invoiced £750 excluding VAT for a psychological report that was obtained. The Defendant requested a breakdown of the invoice, which was before the Court. The breakdown stated that £350 represented the consultation fee, examination, and production of the report. The £400 were ‘agency costs’ such as issuing a consent form, issuing an instruction letter and supporting details to the expert, and quality checking the report before sending it to the Claimant’s solicitors. The question was whether the £400 was recoverable

The Defendant’s argument that the ‘agency costs’ are not recoverable

The Defendant made its argument on the basis of Aldred v Cham (incorrectly referred to as ‘Chan’ in the judgment). In this case, the cost of an advice on infant settlement were not recoverable because they were deemed to be within the fixed recoverable costs within table 6B of CPR 45.29C.

The Defendant submitted that Aldred v Cham was analogous to this case because the...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.