One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025
- SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…
- SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
- MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
- EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR “REASONABLY REQUIRED”: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON'T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT...
- MAZUR RECORDING - NOW AVAILABLE
- MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
- EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR "REASONABLY REQUIRED": COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
- SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
It is quite remarkable that the large size of a paper bundle in the 16th century is still relevant to our courts today. One solution is to cut down the size of the bundles presented in court. Better still and more effective to present them as electronic bundles or e-Bundles. Why? Because it costs the court nothing, saves money for the claimant, saves time for the law firm and allows the court to concentrate on the facts of the case rather than the logistics of the bundle.
The judge holds a single computer tablet roughly one sixth the size of a single lever arch folder. He/she can be directed to individual pages by Counsel and then annotate those pages as relevant to the arguments being heard (or not). These comments form a core bundle of a few pages that are needed for the summing up.
The irrelevant documents do not impact the court room in any way.
Take a look: http://youtu.be/7r8RUwORvkc