Motor Insurers Bureau v Santiago [2026] EWHC 513 (KB)
fixed costs — 2026-02-19
High Court confirms no rule requiring breakdown of agency invoices for disbursements under fixed costs regime. The court assesses reasonableness by reference to market rate, not the bare cost to the individual provider.
Overview
Date: 19 February 2026
Court: High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division
Judge: Mr Justice Moody
Nature of Proceedings: Appeal from detailed assessment of interpreter's fee as a disbursement under the fixed costs regime
Key Issues:
- Whether an interpreter's fee provided through an agency (a company related to the instructing solicitors) is a recoverable disbursement or a disguised profit cost
- Whether a breakdown of an agency invoice is required to strip out any "agency element"
- The correct approach to assessing a reasonable and proportionate interpreter's fee
---
The Facts
The underlying claim was a personal injury case arising from a motorcycle accident on 22 May 2018. The first defendant was uninsured and so the Motor Insurers' Bureau was joined as second defendant. The claim settled on the first day of trial for £20,000 plus costs, subject to the fixed costs regime.
The claimant, a Portuguese speaker, required an interpreter at trial. His solicitors, Bond Turner, claimed £924 for the interpreter's fee. The invoice was rendered by Professional and Legal Services Ltd ("PALS"), a company related to Bond Turner. The interpreter, Mr Marcos Alvarenga, was registered with the National Registry of Public Services Interpreters and would have provided his services directly for an all-inclusive fee of £300.
The case had already been to the Court of Appeal ([2023] EWCA Civ 838), which held that an interpreter's fee was a recoverable disbursement under the fixed costs regime (distinguishing Cham v Aldred [2019] EWCA Civ 1780). The rules have since been amended to make this express at CPR 45.59(a)(v). The Court of Appeal remitted the assessment of quantum to HHJ Dight CBE, the Designated Civil Judge for London, who assessed the fee at £794.40 (£662 plus VAT). The MIB appealed.
---
No Rule Requiring a Breakdown of Agency Invoices
The central issue on appeal was whether Bond Turner was required to provide a breakdown of the PALS invoice, so that the court could identify the sum actually paid to the interpreter and "strip out" any agency element or disguised profit cost.
The MIB argued that since PALS and Bond Turner were related companies, the invoice lacked transparency and could contain a disguised element of solicitors' profit costs — costs which should be caught by the fixed costs regime.
Mr Justice Moody rejected this submission, agreeing with the judge below. Applying the test from Crane v Cannons Leisure Centre [2007] EWCA Civ 1352, he held that interpretation services are not services for which a solicitor carries personal responsibility to the client, and therefore the fee is properly categorised as a disbursement:
> "In my judgment, there is nothing wrong with interpreter services being provided via a company. Indeed, I can see that there may be some advantages in the provision of services in this way. For example, the company may provide cover for illness or the provision of a 'stable' of interpreters of differing levels of expertise and experience."
The judge drew a helpful analogy with expert consultancies such as Burgoynes:
> "Whether or not the expert is engaged by the consultancy as an employee or as a self-employed consultant the fee charged would, in my judgment, be a disbursement and there could be no reason for seeking a breakdown of the actual fee or wage paid to the expert."
Crucially, there was no rule of law or practice requiring a breakdown in every case where a litigation service is provided through a company:
> "It is a question of fact in any particular case as to whether a breakdown is required in order to enable the court to perform its task."
The court noted that while there may be cases where an abuse is suspected or where a breakdown is necessary to establish reasonableness, this was not such a case. The evidence of comparative quotes provided all the information the judge needed. The previous edition of Cook on Costs (2025) at [28.15] had deprecated the County Court practice of routinely requiring breakdowns of medical agency invoices, and that comment had not been carried through to the 2026 edition.
---
The Assessment of a Reasonable Fee
On quantum, the judge below had evidence of nine alternative quotes for interpreter services ranging from £1,300 plus VAT down to £440 plus VAT. He assessed the reasonable fee as the mean of those quotations: £662 plus VAT (£794.40).
The MIB argued the assessment was too high. It pointed out that the interpreter himself would have charged only £300 directly, and submitted the judge should have assessed at less than that figure on the basis that Bond Turner could have negotiated an even lower rate.
Mr Justice Moody found no error of law in the judge's approach. The assessment was an evaluative judgment reached by an experienced judge who would himself have conducted summary assessments after trials in London involving interpreter charges. The Court of Appeal had remitted to the DCJ for precisely that reason. The conclusion was "plainly open to him on the facts" and this was "a paradigm case where appellate restraint should be exercised."
Sir Stephen Stewart, when granting permission, had noted that the highest quote (£1,300 plus VAT) appeared to be "a complete outlier" and that the quotes were obtained in April 2024 whereas the invoice was dated August 2022 (with inflation of 8-11% in the intervening period). However, the MIB had not taken the inflation point below and disclaimed reliance on it.
The appeal was dismissed.
---
Key Takeaways
For Solicitors
1. Agency invoices are recoverable as disbursements — There is no rule requiring a breakdown of invoices from agency or company providers of litigation services (interpreters, experts, medical agencies). The court's task is to assess reasonableness and proportionality, not to audit the internal profit structure of the provider.
2. Related-party providers are permissible — The Legal Services Act 2007 expressly permits solicitors to procure services from related companies. Common ownership between the solicitor and the service provider does not, of itself, render the fee irrecoverable or require additional disclosure.
3. But beware: the door is not closed — The judge acknowledged there "may be cases where an abuse is suspected" where a breakdown should be required. Solicitors using related-party providers should ensure the fees charged are within market range, as the court will still scrutinise reasonableness.
4. Market evidence is key to assessment — Comparative quotes were the decisive evidence. If you are claiming (or challenging) a disbursement, obtaining market comparables is far more effective than seeking invoice breakdowns.
5. Fixed costs practitioners take note — The principle that interpreter fees are recoverable disbursements under the fixed costs regime is now settled, both by Santiago (CA) and the amended CPR 45.59(a)(v). This judgment confirms the approach to quantum: assess by reference to the market rate, not the bare cost to the individual interpreter.
---
Conclusion
This judgment provides welcome clarity on the recoverability of disbursements incurred through agency or corporate providers — a question that arises frequently in fixed costs cases, particularly in relation to interpreter fees and medical agency reports.
The High Court has firmly rejected the approach of requiring invoice breakdowns as a matter of course. The correct question is not "how much did the individual provider receive?" but rather "is the overall fee reasonable and proportionate by reference to the market?" This is a practical and commercially realistic approach that recognises the legitimate role of companies and agencies in the provision of litigation services.
For paying parties, the judgment is a reminder that the most effective way to challenge a disbursement is to put forward evidence of the market rate — as the MIB did here with the evidence of Mr Alvarenga's direct fee of £300. Although that evidence was not sufficient to displace the judge's assessment on the facts, it demonstrates the importance of obtaining comparable evidence rather than relying on procedural arguments about breakdowns.
For receiving parties, the message is clear: ensure your disbursements are within market range. The judge trimmed the claimed fee from £924 to £794.40 — a reduction of 14% — on the basis that it was at the high end. Invoices from related-party providers will inevitably attract scrutiny, and the best protection is evidence that the fee is competitive.
---
Citation: Motor Insurers' Bureau v Santiago [2026] EWHC 513 (KB)
Full judgment available at: BAILII
Related Specialist Support
View all case law updates | Our services | Contact us