MORE ON BUNDLES: VERY DIFFICULT TO USE
I worry that it is unfair on judges for me to select a small part of a carefully crafted judgment for discussion. However comments on practice and procedure are clearly made, within a judgment, for a reason. So I want to point out short observation of Mr Justice Dingeman in his judgment yesterday in Commodities Research Unit International (Holdings) Limited -v King & Wood Mallesons LLP [2016] EWHC 727 (QB).
BUNDLES
The judge observed that the bundles had been poorly labelled.
-
There was extensive documentation (in some 29 full bundles marked with letters and numbers) to which reference was made at trial. The use of the letter I for the labelling of some of the bundles, followed by numbers 1-9, was not helpful. This was because witnesses on both sides overlooked bundle “I2” when asked to turn to it, thinking it was bundle “12”.
So there we have it. A small, but important, point about the labelling of bundles. A point to look out for if you are preparing a trial bundle in the future.
RELATED POSTS
- Promiscuity and bundles: can cause consternation.
- Trial bundles: Timing, Contents & Presentation: and do you know “Sedley’s Laws” ?Trial bundles. Sedley’s Laws and Documentary Carpet Bombing.
- Troublesome bundles yet again.
- Proportionality, bundles and £3 million spent on costs.
- When bundles & sanctions collide.
- More on Bundles: there is much time and money to be saved yet.
- Lengthy bundles and interim costs.
- Get bundles and skeletons to court or else.
- Relief from sanctions: Bundles: Expert evidence and litigants in person.
- Costs, proportionality and getting the bundles right.
- “Madness” over costs and useless trial bundles.
- More about trial bundles: Most of the stuff in them is useless (apparently).
- Bundles, appeals and the art of advocacy: Are poor bundles letting down your case?
- Useless Bundles; lengthy skeletons and judicial ire.
- A word about bundles: More views from the Bench.
- Trial Bundles: Another view from the Bench.
- The Importance of Trial Bundles again: Read Legal Orange.
- Yet more on bundles
- More comments from the Court of Appeal on Bundles.
- Useless bundles: all litigation life is here.
I wonder what solicitors actually get paid for and how many understand how to properly instruct and prepare their own counsel. Far too many firms get a junior to photocopy a mountain of paper and shove it in bundles with no understanding at all of what they are doing. Well prepped bundles are a great tactical advantage. Annoying the judge immensely a couple of weeks before he sees the case is madness. Needless to say; when as an unrepresented litigant with no legal training I appeared (successfully) at the CA my bundles were immaculate 😉
I tend to think that, if the only complaint Dingemans could come up was that “I” looks like “1”, he was a very lucky judge. Judges should remember that litigants are hoping for justice and are not there to listen to well-paid judges moaning about the numbering/lettering of bundles.
The truth of this matter is that most of the judges who complain about bundles will have appeared as counsel in many cases in which the bundles were less than perfect (or contained reams of material which was never referred to at trial).
Tim, see the response above. A litigant in person presents bundles that are “immaculate”. The reason bundles have such a high profile on this blog is because they can save (or waste) court time. It was a perfectly proper observation. The fact that bad practice occurred in the past cannot be a justification for not trying to improve things.
Yes Tim. That is obviously because bundles are prepared by solicitors not barristers.
Gordon maybe you could do a blog highlighting the Supreme Court bundling service thingy. Available for electronic filing in courts which allow or printing otherwise for normal service in all courts. Judges seem to love it. You could even carry an add of theirs and earn a few shekels to eke out your meagre pay at the bar. 😉