BUNDLES IN PART 8 PROCEEDINGS: THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY AND IN CATEGORIES

Issues relating to bundles are a regular theme on this blog. There is a short postscript to the judgment of Master Clark in Hudman v Morris [2021] EWHC 1400 (Ch), where observations were made following a Part 8 hearing relating to the removal of an executor. Put simply the bundle should be in some kind of logical order. The inclusion of documents as exhibits to witness statements in the bundle is often a mistake, these are often better placed elsewhere.

THE POSTSCRIPT: THE BUNDLE MAY IN THIS CASE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY HELPFUL…

“Postscript

1. The bundle in this claim comprised 362 pages. Many of the relevant documents were contained in exhibits to the parties’ witness statements, and were in no particular order. For example, the 3 orders made in the COP proceedings were scattered through the bundle; and no attempt was made to order other documents chronologically. This substantially impaired the accessibility and usability of the bundle.

In a Pt 8 claim of any substance, active consideration should be given to producing a disposal hearing bundle that orders relevant documents chronologically and, where appropriate, groups them in categories. This will mean that the bundle will not preserve the exhibits to the witness statements. In most cases, by which party a document was exhibited will not be significant, but where it is, that can be managed in other ways.”