AN IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT TRIAL BUNDLES: REDACTION SHOULD NOT NORMALLY TAKE PLACE: IT MAKES THE COURT’S JOB MORE DIFFICULT

There is always room for another case about bundles on this site.  It is a subject of endless fascination to  most litigators, and endless frustration for many judges. Here we are looking at a case where the trial judge observed that their job had been made more difficult by the trial bundles having documents that contained redactions.  The judgment sets out the difficulties this causes and the fact that (more often than not) there is no legal basis for this practice.

“in deciding a case like this, with events over many years to consider, and many people involved from different organisations, it makes the court’s job much more difficult if the identities of those sending or receiving letters or emails, or taking part in meetings, are anonymised from an excess of data protection zeal. “

KEY PRACTICE POINT

Those responsible for preparing bundles have to consider whether any redactions of identity are justified. The judgment points out that there are exceptions for the legal process in the Data Protection Act and such redactions are not necessary and may make the judge’s task more difficult.

THE CASE

Cotham School v Bristol City Council & Anor [2025] EWHC 1382 (Ch)  HHJ Paul Matthews, sitting as a Judge of the High Court.

THE FACTS

The judge was deciding whether certain land, registered as a town green, was properly registered.

THE COMMENTS ON THE TRIAL BUNDLE

The trial bundle contained many redactions of names and and personal details. The judge observed that this made his job more difficult and was not necessary.

“96. In the usual way a trial bundle was prepared for use of the court and the parties and witnesses at the trial. Subject to one point, this was well prepared, and I found it of great assistance. But I call attention to that one matter which concerned me. This was that far too many of the documents in the bundle had been redacted, usually to remove names and other personal details of individuals. As a general proposition, this should not happen.

97. I do understand that in these modern times those who handle documents containing personal data (particularly in public sector occupations) are used to routinely redacting documents before allowing third parties to see them, because they do not wish to fall foul of data protection rules. But, in deciding a case like this, with events over many years to consider, and many people involved from different organisations, it makes the court’s job much more difficult if the identities of those sending or receiving letters or emails, or taking part in meetings, are anonymised from an excess of data protection zeal. I remind all parties (and indeed all readers of this judgment) that the data protection legislation contains wide exemptions for the use of personal data in legal proceedings, so that liability will not attach to the disclosure of personal data for the purposes of these proceedings: see eg the Data Protection Act 2018, section 15, Sch 2 paras 5 and 14.

98. Of course, there are types of litigation (such as where the interests and welfare of children are concerned) where a different regime applies. But this is ordinary litigation in the Business and Property Courts, and such special regimes do not apply here. I also accept that there may be exceptional cases even in ordinary civil litigation where some special harm may ensue from the disclosure of personal data, quite outside the data protection rules. However, lawyers are well used to dealing with such cases, for example by specific redaction (justified in advance), the non-provision of certain documents to the public, or even the court sitting in private. But there should be no such wholesale and general redaction of personal data as has taken place here.”