Tag Archives: Bundles

UNNECESSARY MATERIAL, DUPLICATION AND INFORMATION OVERLOAD: ANOTHER JUDGE’S LAMENT

The observations of Mr Justice Kerr at the end of his judgment in Kimmance -v- General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 1808 (Admin) contains some familiar themes in relation to the preparation of cases: bundles, citations and skeletons. “The parties should not lodge thousands of pages of documents to cater for a chance of one in […]

PROVING THINGS 22: DAMAGES, MITIGATION , PART 36 (AND EVEN SOMETHING ABOUT BUNDLES)

The Court of Appeal decision today in Pawar -v- JSD Haulage Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 551 contains some important lessons in relation to proving damages, mitigation of loss and Part 36 offers. “The fact that a claimant does not mitigate his loss does not mean automatically that he recovers nothing. It means he is not […]

THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THE QUESTION OF EXPENSIVE BUNDLES: COULD IT BE CHEAPER ELECTRONICALLY?

Since Supreme Court decisions on trial bundles are few and far between I am  compelled to write about the judgment in Eclipse Film Partners -v- Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2016] UKSC 24.  Here the Court considered bundles which cost over £200,000. I decided to investigate if e-bundles would be cheaper. ” the […]

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 […]

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 […]

PROMISCUITY AND BUNDLES: CAN CAUSE CONSTERNATION

For two years running the post on how to prepare a trial bundle has been the most popular post on this blog (this year it is running second to the post on how to draft a witness statement). The reasons for the concern can be seen in the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Deluxe […]

A SPLIT TRIAL ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE: ANOTHER CAUTIONARY TALE

A post earlier this month looked at the dangers of a court ordering a trial on a preliminary issue on a point of law.  Similar concerns were raised by Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in Water Lilly Co Ltd -v- Clin [2016] EWHC 357 (TCC).  The judge questioned the usefulness of holding a split trial where there was […]

COSTS AFTER A SPLIT TRIAL: PART 36; UNNECESSARY EXPERT REPORTS; PROPORTIONALITY AND USELESS BUNDLES: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE

The short judgment of Mr Justice Males in C&S  Associates UK Limited -v- Enterprise Insurance Company PLC [2016] EWHC 67 (Comm) encapsulates many of the problems of contemporary litigation. “It is important that those litigating in this court are aware of the need for compliance with orders made regarding expert evidence; that so far as […]

GOOD BUNDLES, GOOD ADVOCACY, POOR WITNESS STATEMENTS

The final paragraph of the judgment of HH Judge Behrens in Royal National Institute for Deaf People -v- Turner [2015] EWHC 3301 Ch speaks volumes.  I will allow it to speak for itself.   “I cannot leave this case without expressing my gratitude to all those involved in its preparation. It was helpful to have […]

WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS: COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS, ABSENT STATEMENTS AND LATE BUNDLES

In F-v-M [2015] EWHC 3259 (Fam) Mr Justice Cobb made a wasted costs order against a firm of solicitors. The judgment is (and was designed to be) an object lesson in the need to comply with court directions and court orders. “Whether difficulties in complying with court orders arise out of funding difficulties or otherwise, […]