Guidance note: court bundles

This Guidance Note was updated 30 July 2024. The law or procedure may have changed since that time and members should check the up-to-date position.

The preparation of court bundles is governed by Practice Direction 27A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. It was issued “to achieve consistency across the country in the Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court in the preparation of court bundles”.

In addition, there have been several subsequent protocols/guidance issued by senior members of the judiciary in relation to electronic bundles (e-bundles). Members must ensure that they keep themselves up to date with the current guidance which is currently being provided on a regular basis.

PD27A

It is important for all family law practitioners to be fully aware of this Practice Direction as it applies to all types of family law cases, both financial and Children Act cases, whether being heard on a with or without notice basis.

The practice direction applies to paper bundles as well as electronic bundles. In relation to a hearing before a High Court Judge an electronic bundle may be used with the permission of the judge and in accordance with directions given by the judge.

Practitioners must be extremely careful in the preparation of their bundle. Under paragraph 12.1 failure to comply with this practice direction can result in the judge putting back the case further in the list or removing it altogether from the list, as well as making a “wasted costs order” or another adverse costs order.

Good practice therefore dictates that this should be a task that is embarked upon in good time before each hearing and should not be left until the last minute.

Who is responsible for preparing the bundle?

Paragraph 3.1 of the Practice Direction states that the applicant at the hearing shall provide a bundle for the use of the court, or if there are cross applications before the court the party whose application as first in time.

Litigants in person

In a case where the applicant is a litigant in person then the first listed respondent, who is not a litigant in person, has the responsibility of preparing the bundle.

If all the parties in the case are litigants in person none of them shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be obliged to provide a bundle

Contents of the bundle

Members must be aware of the requirement to only include copies of documents that are relevant to the hearing. Paragraph 4.1 sets out a definitive list of items that must not be included in the bundle, unless the court has specifically directed otherwise. This includes:

  • correspondence (including letters of instruction to experts)
  • medical records (including hospital, GP and health visitor records)
  • bank and credit card statements and other financial records
  • notes of contact visits
  • foster carer logs
  • social services files (with the exception of any assessment being relied on by any of the parties)
  • police disclosure.

However, note also that paragraph 4.1 states that “this does not prevent the inclusion in the bundle of specific documents which it is necessary for the court to read or which will actually be referred to during the hearing. In those circumstances documentation such as that listed above can be included but must be limited to those documents that are necessary or will be referred to.

Preliminary documents

Paragraph 4.3 details the preliminary documents that must be included in the bundle on each occasion:

  • an up to date case summary of the background to the hearing confined to those matters relevant to the hearing and management of the case and limited, if practical, to four A4 pages
  • a statement of the issue or issues to be determined (1) at that hearing and (2) at the final hearing
  • a position statement by each party including a summary of the order or directions sought by that party (1) at that hearing and (2) at the final hearing
  • an up to date chronology, if it is a final hearing or if the summary under (a) is insufficient, each entry being limited, if practicable, to one sentence and cross-referenced to the relevant page(s) in the bundle
  • skeleton arguments, if appropriate
  • a list of essential reading for that hearing and
  • the time estimate

Paragraph 4.3A.1 adds in a new requirement for copies of authorities to be relied on being contained in a separate composite bundle agreed between the advocates and the bundle must not contain more than 10 authorities, unless the court has specifically ordered otherwise. If the bundle is in an electronic format the appropriate hyperlink to each authority must be provided.

Paragraph 4.3A.2 refers to paragraph 6 of Practice Direction (Citation of Authorities) [2001] 1 WLR 1001 and to Practice Direction (Citation of Authorities) [2012] 1 WLR 780 (both set out in The Family Court Practice) which must be complied with.

Paragraph 4.4 states that each of the preliminary documents prepared must be as short and as succinct as possible and shall state on the front page immediately below the heading the date when it was prepared and the date of the hearing for which it was prepared. It also provides guidance for anonymising the background summary in proceedings relating to a child being heard by magistrates.

In financial cases the FRC standard schedule of assets and standard case template includes much of the preliminary documentation.

The Practice Direction provides that only one bundle is allowed unless the court has directed otherwise and should it be necessary for further additional bundles to be filed, a Direction for those additional bundles must be made to the court before the relevant hearing and with good reason (paragraph 5.1).

Bundle format

In addition, the practice direction is very specific as to how the bundle is prepared. If it is a paper bundle it must be contained in one A4 size ring binder or lever arch file and be limited to no more than 350 sheets of A4 paper and 350 sides of text and if an electronic bundle shall be limited to 350 pages of text. (paragraph 5.1).

The revised practice direction introduces at paragraph 5.2A.1 page limits for certain types of document, which can be varied by the judge if necessary as follows:

  • Case summary 6
  • Statement of issues 2
  • Position statements 3
  • Chronology 10
  • Skelton arguments 12
  • List of essential reading 1
  • Witness or affidavit (exclusive of exhibits) 25
  • Experts or other reports 40
  • Care plan 10

Paragraph 5.2A.2 provides that skeleton arguments for financial remedy cases which have been allocated to a High Court Judge shall continue to be governed by paragraph 15 of the Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings dated 1 February 2016.

Paragraph 5.2A.3 states that in the case of an appeal the bundle must comply with the relevant paragraphs of PD 30A

Timetable for service

In accordance with paragraph 6, the bundle index should be served on:

  • all other parties – not less than 4 working days before the hearing
  • counsel – not less than 3 working days before the hearing
  • court – not less than 2 working days before the hearing.

The preliminary documents must be lodged with the court by 11am the day before the hearing.

Lodging the Bundle

Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the revised practice direction deal with lodging the bundle.

Electronic Court Bundles

On 29 November 2021 “General guidance on electronic court bundles” was provided by the President of the Family Division and members of the Senior Judiciary. (It updated and replaced earlier judicial guidance on pdf court bundles dated 20 May 2020).

The updated guidance confirms that e-bundles must be provided in a PDF format and states that all pages in the e-bundle must be numbered by computer-generated numbering, not by hand.  The numbering must start at page 1 for the first page of the bundle and follow sequentially to the last page of the bundle, with the numbers being the same as the PDF document numbers. If a hard copy of the bundle is produced, the pagination must match the e-bundle. In addition the e-bundles must be indexed, hyper linked and subject to optical character recognition.

There has also been additional guidance provided as follows:

Relevant case law

Re X & Y (Bundles) [2008] EWHC 2058 (Fam)

Munby J threatened practitioners who defied the then Practice Direction about bundles with dire consequences. Since then, the Practice Direction has been incorporated within the FPR and reissued on 10 April 2014 in its current form, incorporating the one bundle rule.

J v J [2014] EWCH 3654 (Fam)

In this judgment Mostyn J raised the idea of a delinquents’ court similar to that in the Queen’s Bench Division, which may involve financial sanctions for errant practitioners.

Seagrove v Sullivan [2014] EWHC 4110 (Fam)

At the beginning of the hearing in this case there were 3,500 pages and 32 authorities in the bundle. Holman J adjourned the hearing to the following day by which time the parties were to have agreed one bundle of no more than 300 pages; if they could not decide on the documents to be included, each party was able to choose 150 pages to go into the bundle. Holman J also allowed one bundle of five authorities. He suggested that defaulting parties should have sanctions imposed on them for non-compliance.

Re L (procedure: bundles: translation) [2015] EWFC 15

This case referred to the President’s earlier judgment in the case of Re: X and Y (bundles) [2008] EWHC 2058 (Fam).

Re A [2015] Lexis Citation 8

The local authority had prepared the bundles in care proceedings. Lazarus HHJ stated that the 350-page PD27A-compliant bundle was partial and incomplete. The bundle was missing the parents’ statements; was prepared without the agreement of all parties and therefore missed out crucial evidence. The judge therefore had to allow the parties to expand the bundle during the hearing. Lazarus HHJ ruled that to unilaterally select documents to fit the 350-page limit was an unacceptable failure by the local authority to adequately prepare the bundle.