What with judges’ general dislike of all things costs related, and the latest announcement from the senior judiciary that new costs budgeting rules will not normally apply to disputes of a commercial nature over £2m, one could be forgiven for thinking that our friends on the bench are really not that up for this Jackson malarkey.

They want to be deciding on points of law, not worrying about managing cases or keeping a lid on costs.

So it was actually quite heartening this week to get sight of a note being sent to lawyers in the Manchester area by Judge Stephen Stewart QC, designated civil judge, Greater Manchester. And he is clearly keen to start flexing his new Jackson-powered muscles. Stewart brings to lawyers’ attention ‘two points of major importance which come into force on 1 April’.

The first is that ‘Not only has Rule 3.9 been amended, so has the Overriding Objective. Both now emphasise the importance of complying with Court Orders, the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions’.

Stewart then goes on to quote from one of Lord Justice Jackson’s implementation lectures, ‘Achieving a change of culture in case management’. In the speech, Jackson outlines the Singapore experience, whereby a system of robust case management was very strictly enforced.

Some choice extracts quoted by Judge Stewart include: ‘The effect of the new approach to case management was electric. In the early period there was much discontent within the profession. However, once parties had adapted to the new regime, it was generally recognised that the long-term effect of these reforms was highly beneficial. The work of the profession increased.’

And: ‘I hope that a similar change of culture can be achieved in England when the Costs Review reforms are introduced. It would be an added benefit if… there is a culture change that does not take the profession by surprise and gathers widespread support. Hopefully there will be fewer casualties of the process than there were in Singapore.’

In the second of his two points, Stewart then refers to the senior judiciary’s recent announcement on costs budgeting. He draws particular attention to the statement: ‘Subject to the limited exceptions which will be dealt with in the direction, it is envisaged that costs management orders would be made in all cases except where there is good reason not to do so.’

At least one judge, then, seems ready to embrace his duties in the new era. Let’s hope his colleagues in the wider judiciary feel the same.

Rachel Rothwell is editor of Litigation Funding magazine, providing in-depth coverage on costs and the financing of litigation.

Follow Rachel on Twitter