Seagrove v Sullivan

Family litigation must be conducted proportionately, having regard to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues, the need to save expense and the proper allocation of court resources. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 and Practice Direction 27A apply to all hearings in the Family Division, including TOLATA claims. A direction requiring solicitors to agree bundles does not, without more, authorise documents exceeding the prescribed limit. The scale exception in the Practice Direction on Citation of Authorities concerns the actual scale of the litigation, not merely legal complexity. Where parties disregard these requirements, the court may impose robust case-management measures, including removing excessive documents and requiring a fresh, limited bundle.

The parties had cohabited for more than 20 years and were engaged in extensive financial and family litigation. The applicant claimed a beneficial interest in their former home under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and financial provision under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. The hearing had been listed for eight days, with approximately 3,500 pages of documents and 32 authorities, despite the applicable limits on bundles and authorities.

The central issue at this stage was whether the court should permit the case to proceed on that basis and whether earlier directions constituted a specific direction authorising departure from the bundle limit.

1. The court treated the excessive documentation and costs as wholly disproportionate. The overriding objective in the Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 1.1, required the case to be dealt with fairly and expeditiously, proportionately, with expense saved and with an appropriate share of court resources. The court’s duty actively to manage cases under rule 1.4 reinforced those requirements.

2. Practice Direction 27A applied to all hearings in the Family Division and Family Court, including a beneficial-interest claim under TOLATA consolidated with a Schedule 1 claim. Paragraph 5.1 required one bundle of no more than 350 sheets or sides of text unless the court had specifically directed otherwise and was satisfied that departure was necessary for justice.

3. The earlier direction that “bundles” were to be agreed between solicitors did not amount to a specific direction authorising unlimited or excessive documentation. It could not reasonably be read as giving the parties or their solicitors carte blanche to disregard Practice Direction 27A.

4. The exception in the Practice Direction: Citation of Authorities did not turn simply on the complexity of the law. It concerned the actual scale of the underlying litigation. This was a relatively small financial dispute, and citation of 32 authorities was unjustified.

5. The court adopted the guidance in J v J, [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam), concerning compliance with the one-bundle rule and the impermissibility of circumventing it by bringing an archive of additional material to trial. The court ordered that all lodged material, apart from the skeleton arguments and chronology, be removed, and adjourned the case so that the parties could attend with one composite bundle of no more than 300 pages and no more than five authorities.

6. On the following morning the parties reached a comprehensive settlement, and the judge made a Tomlin order containing their agreement in a confidential schedule. The substantive beneficial-interest and Schedule 1 issues were therefore not adjudicated.

First-instance case-management judgment. The parties settled on the following morning and a Tomlin order was made.