Good case management is key to successful litigation; a crucial aspect of case management is the preparation of a functional trial bundle in a timely manner, to ensure that any listed hearings proceed as scheduled.

While most cases will, through the diligent work of partners, case handlers and paralegals proceed as expected, there are occasions where the standards slip. The courts will not look kindly upon “haphazardly” prepared bundles, as seen in the judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Obi in Serra v Harvey [2024] EWHC 2250 (KB).

This hearing flowed from what was scheduled to be a four-day trial, that was adjourned due to the concerns of the trial Judge about the adequacy of the bundle prepared by the Claimant’s solicitors. The bundle was prepared in haste and served late, which plainly affected the parties' ability to conduct the trial in the original trial window.

The Claimant did not comply with a Court Order to prepare the bundles, so the Defendant’s solicitors prepared Bundles 1 and 2 to ensure the hearing was effective. The Claimant’s solicitors prepared Bundles 3 and 4 but there were various issues as outlined in paragraph 9 of the judgment, such as a lack of proper indexing. Eventually, a finalised bundle was sent by the Claimant’s solicitors 24 hours before the hearing and even then, there were items in the bundle that had not previously been disclosed.

The first point of note for litigators is in paragraph 4 of the judgment, in which the Judge stated that, “there needs to be a hands-on approach by all parties with regards to compliance with court orders.” It is plain from this that the Court will expect the parties to assist the Court in its case management; clear structures and effective administrative processes are key.

Judge Obi continued, “Preparing trial bundles is not difficult but it does require organisation and planning”[1]. While this task does not require the highest amount of brain power, it does need meticulous planning and should be commenced in good time before the hearing.

Judge Obi at paragraph 30 delivered perhaps the key takeaway in this judgment for law firms: “It seems to me that there is a public interest in costs, which have been wasted as a result of a solicitor's conduct in proceedings being visited on the solicitors in the form of a Wasted Costs order, for two main reasons. First, it sends a clear message that the Court expects orders to be complied with and it reaffirms the duty to monitor compliance and inform the Court about any failure to comply with a case management direction. Secondly, and importantly it relieves the cost burden on the solicitors' client who would, if no costs order were made, potentially need to make a negligence claim against their solicitors with all the additional costs that would incur."

The Judge found that the Defendant's solicitors should be 100% liable for the wasted costs Order that was made.

This judgment, while a somewhat extreme example, should be a cautionary tale for firms of solicitors to ensure that proper processes are in place to ensure that Court Orders are prioritised, and directions followed.

It’s never too late to polish your processes to avoid bungling your bundles.

--

[1] Para 15