ANOTHER COMMENT ON BUNDLES: TOO MUCH AND TOO BIG

I do not scour the law reports for complaints about trial bundles, they just keep occurring and I keep commenting.  It is a matter that has a surprisingly large readership: the post on how to prepare a trial bundle has been the most popular post on this blog for two years.

There were more observations on  trial bundles today in the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr in Hudson Contract Services -v- The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2016] EWHC 844 (Admin)

  1. By way of postscript, I wish to refer to one unhappy feature of this case. The documents were in a so-called “core” bundle running to four thick lever arch files containing an extraordinary amount of unnecessary materials, which were not referred to and were copied in single-sided A4 sheets making portability impracticable. This has delayed my written judgment.
  2. The case cried out for a core bundle in the true sense of the term, which I had to assemble myself to make sense of the case and produce the draft judgment during a period of frequent travel. I hope in future that bundles will be copied double-sided (unless the court otherwise directs) and will be restricted to necessary documents. My own preference (though not, I recognise, that of all judges) is for A5 double-sided copies which greatly increase portability.”

RELATED POSTS

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: