“No rule of law or practice that requires a breakdown” where litigation service is provided by a company.

SIGN UP TO OUR FREE COSTS NEWSLETTER BY CLICKING HERE

The MIB failed in its appeal against the assessment of an Interpreter fee incurred through an agency owned by the Claimant solicitor. You can read our blog on the previous decision here.

In Motor Insurers' Bureau v Santiago [2026] EWHC 513 (KB) (19 February 2026), the High Court confirmed that while a court may require a breakdown of interpreter or similar litigation services fees, there is no automatic entitlement to one. The Court expressly recognised:

“There may be cases where an abuse is suspected, or indeed where it is necessary to establish the reasonableness of the fee charged, where a breakdown should be required and provided.”

The crucial point is that a breakdown is only necessary where it is needed to determine reasonableness and proportionality or where abuse is suspected.

No Breakdown Required on the Facts

The High Court held that:

“In this case the evidence of Mr Dean and Mr Ryder provided all the information the Judge needed in order to assess the reasonableness of the fee claimed, and accordingly I reject the submission that a breakdown should have been provided and I reject the submission that the costs should have been assessed at nil in the absence of a breakdown.”

So long as the court has sufficient information to assess the fee, a breakdown is not a prerequisite.

Procurement From a Related Company Is Not Improper

The MIB also challenged the fact the interpreter services were procured via an agency owned by the Claimant’s solicitors. The Court dismissed this, accepting the argument of the Claimant:

“I accept Mr Williams's submission that here is nothing unlawful about procuring the services from a related company. He pointed out that the Legal Services Act 2007 expressly permits this. If there had been no common ownership then it seems unlikely that a breakdown would have been requested and I can see no reason why one would have been necessary.”

The Court noted that if there had been no common ownership, a breakdown would likely not have been sought (and indeed not even necessary) — and that ownership alone is not grounds for demanding one.

There was no evidence of abuse, and the comparable fee evidence provided by the Claimant was sufficient to support the assessment of reasonableness and proportionality.

Judicial Discretion on Breakdowns Remains, but Only Where Needed

While the judgment preserves judicial discretion to require a breakdown of fees for litigation services, the High Court made clear that this discretion should only be exercised where necessary to establish reasonableness and proportionality. In this case, the comparative evidence provided was more than adequate.

A costly exercise for an Interpreter fee of £924

Perhaps most striking is that the MIB — funded through compulsory levies on car insurance — pursued the argument that interpreter fees were not recoverable at all all the way to the Court of Appeal. This was always going to be a difficult argument to sustain in the medium to long term given the access-to-justice and human rights considerations. The fact that two KCs (Robert Marven KC for the MIB and Ben Williams KC for the Claimant) were instructed over a fee of £924 raises obvious questions about proportionality and the use of public funds. Indeed, over the course of the original Court of Appeal proceedings (where the MIB argued against the recovery of interpreter fees in fixed costs cases) and now this High Court appeal, the MIB has managed to reduce the interpreter fee by just £129.60 with a fee of £794.40 ultimately allowed.

The issue of breakdown remains a live issue and the High Court judgment leaves open judicial discretion on the point in relation to litigation services fees (like translation or interpretation), however, it's clear that such discretion is only necessary if it is required to establish reasonableness and proportionality. Here the comparable evidence provided supported the assessment.

Have you received a challenge to an agency element of your costs? Do you want to discuss matters relating to disbursement recovery or simply costs matters generally? We are always happy to have a chat and provide a view or advice on strategy, tactics and/or approach. The court's comments reinforce the importance of comparator evidence when assessing the reasonableness of litigation services provided by a company. Should you want to discuss this or any other issues, then you can give us a call on 01482 534 567 or email info@carterburnett.co.uk.