It appears that there has been some uncertainty as to whether the costs management/costs budgeting reforms apply to judicial review cases. The wording of CPR 3.12 states that Practice Direction 3E on costs management applies to all multi-track cases commenced on or after 1 April 2013, except:
cases in the Admiralty and Commercial Courts;
such cases in the Chancery Division as the Chancellor of the High Court may direct; and
such cases in the Technology and Construction Court and the Mercantile Court as the President of the Queen’s Bench Division may direct, unless the proceedings are the subject of fixed costs or scale costs or the court otherwise orders. This Section and Practice Direction 3E will apply to any other proceedings (including applications) where the court so orders.
While the wording of CPR 3.12 seems to exclude judicial review claims (as they are not overtly mutli-track cases and are governed by their own discreet regime under CPR 54) it does not expressly do so.
However, it appears that earlier this year a sub-committee (led by Coulson J) of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee was tasked with (amongst other things) determining whether and to what extent Part 8 claims (including judicial review) should be excluded from the mandatory costs budgeting regime (see consultation paper attached for detail). The consultation closed on 20 July 2013 and the sub-committee met in September. They are expected to give an oral report to the full CPR Committee on 11 October 2013 and to issue new/amendments to the rules in November.
So watch this space!
This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.