Proposed Amendments to Bundles (PD27A)

Sir James Munby has recently published a Memorandum proposing amendments to the Bundles PD – PD27A.

In his announcement he said

“PD27A imposes a 350-page limit (PD 27A, para 5.1) and spells out (para 4.1) the fundamental principle that “The bundle shall contain copies of only those documents which are relevant to the hearing and which it is necessary for the court to read or which will actually be referred to during the hearing.” Compliance with these requirements is still fitful.

One matter which is not regulated by PD27A is the length of individual documents. I urged restraint in Re L [2015] EWFC 15, [2015] 1 FLR 1417, paras 21-22. I am not conscious that this has had much effect. I wonder whether the time has therefore not now come to impose page limits for certain types of documents, which will be mandatory in all cases “Unless” – cf PD27A, para 5.1 – “the court has specifically directed otherwise, being satisfied that such direction is necessary to enable the proceedings to be disposed of justly.”

I accordingly suggest for consideration the insertion in PD27A of a new para 5.2A, as follows:

“Unless the court has specifically directed otherwise, being satisfied that such direction is necessary to enable the proceedings to be disposed of justly, any of the following documents included in the bundle shall be limited to no more than the number of sheets of A4 paper and sides of text specified below:”



Case summary 4

Statement of issues 2

Position statement 5

Chronology 10

Skeleton argument 15

List of essential reading 1

Witness statement or affidavit
(exclusive of exhibits) 20

Expert’s or other report 40

Care plan 10


He continues in the Memorandum:

“I ask three questions: (i) is this desirable; (ii) if so, should length be controlled by a page count or a word count; and (iii) if by page count, are the suggested figures are appropriate?

As a separate matter, I further suggest that the final words of PD27A, para 4.3, be re-numbered 4.3A and amended to read (additional words show in italic):

“Copies of all authorities relied on must be contained in a separate composite bundle agreed between the advocates. Unless the court has specifically directed otherwise, being satisfied that such direction is necessary to enable the proceedings to be disposed of justly, the bundle shall not contain more than 10 authorities. Where a case is reported in a law report which contains a headnote, such a report shall be used and transcripts (including transcripts on BAILII) shall not be used. Attention is drawn to the Practice Direction dated 24 March 2012.”

Interesting comment on the authorities.

It''s all very well wanting authorities from law reports with headnotes, but a BAILII transcript is pretty much all of us litigants in person can access.

That''s a good point. If a litigant in person wishes to cite case law and a solicitor is acting for the opponent I would expect the solicitor to dig out the appropriate law report but they could just as easily refuse not least as they owe a duty to their client, not to their opponent.

It is not the work of a moment to interpret the law to meet the needs of the point you are trying to make.

I imagine that a lot of judges face dealing with extracts from case law that are taken out of context, have been superseded or have been successfully appealed.

Charles