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).


The judge observed that the bundles had been poorly labelled.

  1. 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.




  1. 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😉

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. Yes Tim. That is obviously because bundles are prepared by solicitors not barristers.

  5. 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.😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: