GIBBINS

[Re X & Y (bundles): Fam Div [Mr Justice Murtby): 22 August 2008.]

Giving two examples of family cases where Practice Direction (Fam Div. Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) [2006] 1WLR 2843 had not been followed, the court commented on practitioners’ general failure to comply with the practice direction. In one case, the hearing bundle prepared by experienced family solicitors had lacked a reading list and skeleton argument, and the chronology and index were virtually useless. Most of the key documents were scattered through the bundle without chronological or thematic order. In the second case, a bundle had been delivered to the court on the morning of the hearing, leaving no time for pre-reading. The index stated the wrong date and court, and two orders which should have been included in the bundle were not. The hearing had to be re-listed. These were two examples out of many instances of the practice direction not having been followed.

Held: Far too often the requirements of the practice direction were not being observed. That was unacceptable. Paragraph 12 of the practice direction warned of sanctions penalising those who failed to comply with its requirements. Orders for costs could be made against either the party in default or against the defaulting lawyers. Cases could be put to the end of the list or adjourned to a later date. In particularly egregious cases, defaulters could be publicly identified in open court

The court’s comments were to be taken by the professions as fair public warning that the sanction of public exposure was available and could be applied in appropriate cases.

Statement issued in open court.