X and Y, Re Bundles

Practitioners in family proceedings must comply meticulously with the applicable court-bundle Practice Direction. This obligation applies equally to regular practitioners and those appearing only occasionally. Bundles and preliminary documents must be complete, accurate, up to date and lodged with the correct court officer within the required time. Non-compliance may cause delay and prejudice to other litigants and may justify costs orders, postponement or adjournment, and, after fair warning, public identification of the defaulting practitioner.

The judgment arose from repeated failures by family practitioners to comply with the Practice Direction governing court bundles. The immediate example concerned an appeal from a District Judge’s decision in proceedings under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996. The bundle and skeleton argument arrived late, contained inaccurate hearing information, omitted relevant orders and documents, and had been lodged with the wrong office. The resulting lack of preparation required the case to be adjourned.

The court considered the purpose of the Practice Direction, the professional obligations it imposed, and the sanctions available for default.

1. Mandatory compliance. Practitioners appearing in family proceedings are professionally obliged to know and comply meticulously with the Practice Direction: Court Bundles. The obligation applies both to practitioners who regularly practise in the family courts and to those appearing there only occasionally. A practitioner must identify and assimilate any applicable guide or Practice Direction before appearing.
2. Purpose of the requirements. The prescriptive requirements concerning bundles, skeleton arguments and other preliminary documents enable the judge to undertake structured and focused pre-reading. They allow the hearing to proceed directly to the issues, reduce hearing length, increase the throughput of the family courts, and reduce waiting times and delay. Non-compliance undermines those objectives and may prejudice compliant litigants whose cases are delayed by the default.
3. Nature of compliance. A bundle must be lodged with the correct officer, accurately indexed, complete and current, and must contain the documents required for the hearing. Superseded documents and outdated skeleton arguments must be removed. A bundle prepared for an earlier hearing must be updated and must explain any adjournment or change of hearing.
4. Sanctions. Paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction permits sanctions including costs orders against the party in default or the defaulting lawyers, placing the case at the end of the list, and adjournment or removal of the case from the list. In particularly egregious cases, public identification of the defaulting practitioners may be appropriate. Fair public warning is required before that last sanction is imposed.
5. The immediate case was adjourned because there was insufficient time to read the defective bundle and hear argument without disturbing other cases in the list. The judgment warned that future defaulters might be publicly identified.

Not an appellate judgment for the purposes of the reported decision. The judgment describes an underlying appeal from a District Judge in the PRFD, but gives no citation for the District Judge’s decision or any prior appellate determination.