Tag Archives: Trial bundles

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 […]

TROUBLESOME BUNDLES YET AGAIN: MR JUSTICE EDER SPEAKS OUT ON WASTEFUL BUNDLES IN THE COMMERCIAL COURT

The question of bundles was raised by Mr Justice Eder in Taberna Europe -v- Selskabet [2015] EWHC 871 (Comm).  This is hardly a new complaint and appears across the board in all jurisdictions. (There are now 16 posts on this blog just about bundles [see below]. The post on bundles “Sedley’s Laws” remains the most […]

MORE ON BUNDLES: THERE IS MUCH TIME & MONEY TO BE SAVED YET

I have often commented (and been surprised) by the fact that a post on preparing trial bundles is always the most popular page on this blog.  Following a prompt from Dominic Regan it was interesting to watch the live feed of the Coventry case and the problems that were taking place with the different pagination […]

LENGTHY BUNDLES AND INTERIM COSTS: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE TECHNOLOGY & CONSTRUCTION COURT

The two judgments of Mr Justice Akenhead in the Secretary of State for the Home Environment -v- Raythean Systems Limited [2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC) and [2015] EWHC 311 (TCC) contain some familiar motifs in relation to the size of bundles, length of witness statements and skeleton arguments and costs. THE CASE The claimant was seeking […]

COSTS, PROPORTIONALITY AND GETTING THE BUNDLES RIGHT: TAKE EVERYTHING OUT OF COURT NOW AND COME BACK TOMORROW

An earlier post reported on the observations of Mostyn J in J-v-J in relation to costs, proportionality and bundles.  If you take the indignation and sense of outrage  expressed in  J-v-J  about costs, preparation and bundles,  and then  quadruple it,  you could arrive at the views of Holman J in  Seagrove -v- Sulllivan (Practice Direction […]

“MADNESS” OVER COSTS AND USELESS TRIAL BUNDLES : VIEWS FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION

Civil practitioners may benefit from reading the observations of Mostyn J in J -v- J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam). It suggests that family lawyers may soon be subject to much more rigorous costs budgeting. There are also important observations about trial bundles which are of general interest. THE CASE The judge was considering an ancillary […]