MRC’s Submission to the CPRC on the LDFRC Scheme

MRC submitted a response to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) consultation on the Lower Damages Fixed Recoverable Costs (LDFRC) scheme. Our central argument is straightforward: the scheme requires a paginated bundle of medical records, but does not propose making pagination costs recoverable as a separate disbursement. That gap risks either records not being collated to the standard the scheme assumes, or the cost falling on claimants.

MRC is a PAGE-accredited firm (Pagination Accreditation Group for Experts), specialising in collating, sorting and indexing medical records for UK clinical negligence and personal injury practices. This article sets out the substance of our submission: why pagination is a distinct, skilled service rather than administrative overhead, the equality implications of leaving it unrecoverable, and the evidence we provided on record volumes in lower-value claims.

Last reviewed: August 2026.

Key takeaways

• The LDFRC scheme requires a paginated bundle but does not propose pagination fees as a recoverable disbursement.
• MRC's position is that pagination should be recoverable, in the same way as expert reports and ATE insurance premiums.
• Outsourced collation is materially cheaper than the same work done by fee earners or medical experts.
• Leaving the cost unrecoverable has equality consequences for claimants with complex histories, records in other languages, or care received abroad.
• Our evidence showed that lower-value claims routinely involve very large record sets, in one sampled case more than 8,500 pages.

What is the LDFRC scheme, and where is the gap?

The LDFRC scheme sets fixed recoverable costs for lower-value clinical negligence claims, with the aim of making the process more predictable and cost-effective. It assumes the parties will work from a properly paginated bundle of medical records.

The difficulty is that the scheme requires the output without funding the work that produces it. Pagination is treated as absorbed overhead rather than a recoverable disbursement. In practice that leaves a firm with three options: absorb the cost, do the work in-house at higher cost, or pass it to the claimant. None of those serves the scheme's stated purpose.

Why is pagination a distinct service rather than administrative overhead?

Because it is a skilled process that goes well beyond assigning page numbers. Records are sorted by type, chronology and source, duplicates are removed, detailed indexes are built, and records are digitised so they can be searched and shared.

That work produces three concrete benefits. It gives every party a single coherent set of records, which makes communication between them straightforward. It reduces the time medical experts, the parties and the court spend navigating records, which is where the largest downstream savings sit. And it supports compliance with data protection obligations, by ensuring records do not carry third-party privileged information. For solicitors the effect is that critical detail is not overlooked. For the claimant, a properly paginated bundle means their medical history is presented accurately and completely, which makes a fair assessment of the claim more likely.

Specialist agencies can carry out this work at a fraction of the cost of in-house legal professionals or medical experts doing the same task. That is precisely the kind of efficiency the LDFRC scheme is intended to encourage, which is why it is odd for the scheme not to recognise it.

What are the equality implications of not making pagination recoverable?

Access to justice should not depend on socio-economic status, and an unrecoverable cost creates exactly that risk. If pagination fees cannot be recovered, solicitors may be deterred from taking on cases involving extensive medical records.

That falls unevenly. Claimants with complex health histories generate the largest record sets, so their cases become the least attractive to take on. The consultation makes provisions for protected parties and children, but organising records is arguably more important for these groups, not less, because properly paginated records shorten proceedings and vulnerable claimants have most to lose from prolonged litigation. There is a further effect where records are in multiple languages or come from international medical institutions, which takes longer to process. If that additional work is not compensated, claimants from ethnic minority backgrounds or those who received care abroad may find their cases harder to place. And where firms pass the cost on, claimants from lower socio-economic backgrounds may be deterred from pursuing legitimate claims at all.

What is MRC's proposal to the CPRC?

We advocate for the inclusion of pagination costs as a separate recoverable disbursement under the LDFRC scheme, treated in the same way as expert reports and ATE insurance premiums.

Without that provision, there is a genuine risk that records are not collated to the necessary standard, producing inefficiency, misunderstanding and delay. The absence of properly paginated records also increases time and cost for medical experts and legal professionals, who would need to sort through unorganised records manually. That tends to increase the overall cost of the claim and lengthen its resolution, which runs directly against the scheme's objectives.

To secure quality while controlling cost, we also proposed that firms using the LDFRC scheme should be required to instruct providers accredited by PAGE (Pagination Accreditation Group for Experts). PAGE accreditation holds pagination firms to consistent standards, so mandating it would give the scheme a reliable quality floor rather than leaving bundle standards to vary provider by provider. As a PAGE-accredited firm ourselves, we would welcome that requirement.

What evidence did MRC provide on record volumes?

The CPRC asked whether we held data on the prevalence of disbursements for claims in this value band. We reviewed a sample of 55 cases worked on over the preceding nine months. Of those, five had a solicitor-estimated quantum falling within the lowest LDFRC damages band.

The point the data makes is that a low damages figure tells you nothing about the size of the record set. The five cases are set out below with their page counts.

A claim in the lowest damages band involving over 8,500 pages of records is not an outlier that can be absorbed as overhead. Patients with complex medical histories tend to have both extensive records and, often, modest quantum. Those are exactly the claims that become uneconomic to run if the collation cost is unrecoverable.

In summary

The LDFRC scheme sets out to make lower-value clinical negligence claims more efficient and more predictable. Recognising pagination as a recoverable disbursement supports both aims, because organised records reduce expert and court time rather than adding cost. Leaving it out risks lower-quality bundles, longer proceedings, and claimants with complex histories finding it harder to secure representation.

MRC is AI-driven and clinically led: MRC AI sorts and structures the records at speed, and qualified clinicians verify them and provide the clinical context. To discuss MRC Pagination or this submission, contact MRC. Website: mrcgroup.uk. Phone: 0161 928 1636. Email: info@mrcgroup.uk.

Frequently asked questions