Child Care Solicitors

Court bundles, although perhaps not the most titillating of topics, are a key component in litigation. If made properly, and available in good time, a bundle has the potential to imbue a Judge with confidence that you have considered and prepared your case with competence. Once the trial is over and all the submissions have been made, your bundle remains with the Judge as he/she considers their Judgment. If the Court fails to be impressed with your bundle, there is the potential for censure, the making of adverse costs orders against you, or your firm being named and shamed.

The purpose of a court bundle is to provide the Judge and the parties with relevant material to be referred to during the course of a hearing to enable it to proceed expeditiously and efficiently.

Practice Direction 39A of the Civil Procedure Rules provides the Court’s guidelines as to the content, format and presentation of the bundle. The Courts have been strict on practitioners who fail to comply with the demands of the CPR when it comes to their bundles. In the case of Iliffe and Another v Feltham Construction Ltd and Others [2015]BLR 544, Lord Justice Jackson stated that “the appeal bundle should be an aid to the Court, not an obstacle course… In the present case, as I indicated during argument, whatever the outcome of the appeal no party will be entitled to recover any costs referable to the preparation of the bundle”.

Often it is unavoidable that the process of bundle preparation is fast-paced, neck-breaking stuff and you are working to a tight deadline. Under these circumstances, even with the best will in the world, it is easy to make small errors. Unfortunately, the Courts are rarely sympathetic to this plight and they require that bundles are prepared with precision, accuracy and simplicity. The devil is often in the detail.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Sedley of the Court of Appeal penned some helpful, somewhat tongue in cheek, guidelines which ought to be borne in mind whenever one is faced with the joyous task of preparing a bundle:

“First Law: Documents may be assembled in any order, provided it is not chronological, numerical or alphabetical.
Second Law: Documents shall in no circumstances be paginated continuously.
Third Law: No two copies of any bundle shall have the same pagination.
Fourth Law: Every document shall carry at least three numbers in different places.
Fifth Law: Any important documents shall be omitted.
Sixth Law: At least 10 percent of the documents shall appear more than once in the bundle.
Seventh Law: As many photocopies as practicable shall be illegible, truncated or cropped.
Eighth Law:

1. At least 80 percent of the documents shall be irrelevant.


2. Counsel shall refer in court to no more than 10 percent of the documents, but these may include as many irrelevant ones as counsel or solicitor deems appropriate.

Ninth Law: Only one side of any double-sided document shall be reproduced.
Tenth Law: Transcriptions of manuscript documents shall bear as little relation as reasonably practicable to the original.
Eleventh Law: Documents shall be held together, in the absolute discretion of the solicitor assembling them, by:

1. a steel pin sharp enough to injure the reader,


2. a staple too short to penetrate the full thickness of the bundle.


3. tape binding so stitched that the bundle cannot be fully opened, or,


4. a ring or arch-binder, so damaged that the two arcs do not meet.”

The preparation of court bundles is, as I am well aware, an unglamorous and stressful task. Whilst preparing for a recent high-profile group litigation against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, two colleagues and I worked tirelessly for several days on the bundles. The task literally demanded our blood, sweat and tears. The significance of the bundle, however, cannot be underestimated, as it is the all-important vehicle for your evidence and the backbone for your client’s case.

About the author: Tamsin Andrews joined Duncan Lewis as a Caseworker in the Childcare Department at the Harrow office in November 2013. She had experience in a Family law firm in Sydney and studying the Family Elective gave her a keen interest in the area of Childcare.