One of the Jackson reforms which took effect on April 1 is the requirement for costs budgets to be filed for multi-track cases. There is real uncertainty as to whether this particular aspect of the Jackson reforms applies to judicial review claims. Our view is that it probably does not apply. While judicial review claims are multi-track claims, the requirement for a costs budget is triggered by the issue of a notice of allocation to a track pursuant to CPR 26.3(1). Judicial review claims are not allocated to a track, they are all treated as being multi-track, and CPR 26 is disapplied. See CPR 8.9(c).

This also makes sense. There are good reasons to exclude judicial review claims from this process. Judicial review claims do not usually have a case management stage and, given the lack of Masters in the Administrative Court, it is difficult to see where this case management would come from. The perceived problem which gave rise to this reform (runaway costs) is not generally perceived as being as much of a problem in most judicial review claims.