You need to select the appropriate option - colour rather than black and white - when scanning in the document before loading it to Caselines. Since virtually all scanners can scan in colour there is generally no reason not to scan all documents in in colour. If you have already scanned in a document in black and white then this is, of course, fine if the original is black and white, or if the only colours on the original are of no significance (e.g. a letter where the letterhead happens to have a colour logo) but photographs must always be scanned in in colour and any map, plan or other document which uses colour coding must be scanned in in colour.
Have a look at the original paper document and compare with the copy on Caselines. If the original document is easier to read than the copy on Caselines, try changing the options on your scanner (e.g. light/dark and contrast) to see if you can make a better copy to load to Caselines. If, however, the original document is partially illegible and the copy on Caselines is the best that can be done, then you should make this clear like this:-
Have a look at the original paper document and compare with the copy on Caselines. If the original document is easier to read than the copy on Caselines, try changing the options on your scanner (e.g. light/dark and contrast) to see if you can make a better copy to load to Caselines. If, however, the original document is completely or almost completely illegible and the copy on Caselines is the best that can be done, then you should make this clear like this:-
This can happen as a result of a scanner document feeder misfead or if you place a page on the glass of a flatbed scanner in the wrong position. If can also sometimes happen if you set your scanner software to automatically detect the page size and it auto-detects wrongly. If this is the cause, delete the document from Caselines and try re-scanning it and loading it again.
However, if the problem is caused by the original paper copy already being cropped then indicate this like this:
The pages of a document are split between multiple documents on Caselines. For example a document on Caselines contains only the first page of a letter and the second page of the letter has been loaded to Caselines as a separate document.
The usual cause of this error is that you have scanned in one page of a letter, or other document, as one PDF, and then scanned in the second page as a new PDF. Now that you have these separate pages loaded into Caselines, you can merge them into a single document by clicking on the Merge button in Caselines. To avoid this problem in future if you are loading additional documents, what you should do is scan all pages of a document in together as a single PDF as shown here before loading the single PDF to Caselines.
The most common cause of this error is that you have loaded more than one document into the automatic document feeder (ADF) of your scanner and have created a large PDF containing multiple documents which you have then loaded into Caselines as a single document. To resolve this problem, you can split it into individual documents by clicking on the Split button in Caselines. Alternatively if there are a large number of individual documents within the Caselines "document", you might find it quicker to download the PDF and use Sejda to split it into individual PDFs which can then be uploaded to Caselines.
Apart from emails (where the Caselines document should contain the email body and all attachments) and covering letters (where the Caselines document should contain the covering letter and the enclosures) all Caselines documents should contain just one document.
There are several ways in which a document may come to have an annotation. If someone prints out a letter to send and then notices a small mistake, they might correct it on their computer and reprint, or, to save time, ink and paper, they might just correct it with a pen. The recipient of such a letter only has the annotated version. If, however, the annotation was made by the recipient, they may or may not have kept a "clean" copy. Apart from correcting typos there are various other reasons why people annotate documents: they may have made notes or comments as they read, or they may have telephoned the author with queries and written down the answers as annotations.
If possible you should indicate briefly in the title of an annotated document when (approximately) it was annotated -e.g.
Letter Smith to Jones (annotated shortly after receipt)
or, if you do not know when it was annotated
Letter Smith to Jones (annotated)
And if you have a clean copy you should load that to Caselines as well
Letter Smith to Jones
An annotation, as described above, made in the ordinary course of events when a document is received (or, at least, made at some point in the past before the current litigation was contemplated) is very different from you recently making a copy of a photo or other document and annotating it in order to point something out to me (and/or, in due course, to a court/tribunal). You can, of course, email that recently annotated copy to me, together with anything else you want to tell me, but obviously it is the original document, not the copy with your recent annotation, which needs to be loaded to Caselines.
Generally speaking the same document should not appear in a Caselines "case" more than once. This is for two reasons. First, it increases the time anyone looking at the documents has to spend reading and searching because there are more pages to look through. Secondly, it usually means that the reader spends some time puzzling over why there are apparently two identical copies of the same document. If the documents, though at first glance the same, do, in fact, contain a significant difference then it is helpful if this can be indicated in brackets in the title - e.g. if one copy has been annotated and one has not they can be titled like this
Letter Smith to Jones
Letter Smith to Jones (annotated)
If, on the other hand, the copies really are identical and there is no reason for them both to be on the Caselines "case", one should be removed.
If the PDFs which you loaded commenced with the date in yyyy-mm-dd format then the date for each document will automatically be set in Caselines. Otherwise dates will default to today's date so you will need to change the date, for each document, to the date of the document itself as shown here.
Every document must have a date in Caselines. If you do not know the exact date of the document you can type in e.g. Jan 2010 or just 2010 if even the month is uncertain. If you are not even sure about the year of the document, you should enter the approximate year and indicate in the title of the document that the year is only approximate, like this:-
Document Title Document Date
Photo circa early 1990s 1990
As you can see from the picture at the top of this page, for each document on Caselines there is a document Title and a separate document Date. The date of the document has to be entered under Date; if the document date is simply entered as part of the document Title then Caselines cannot use it to list the documents in date order. If a PDF commences with the date exactly in yyyy-mm-dd format then Caselines will use that as the document Date and use the remainder of the PDF name as the document Title but if the date in the PDF name is not exactly in yyyy-mm-dd format then Caselines does not recognise it as a date, sets the Date to today's date, and keeps the date it does not recognise as part of the document Title. You need to change the date, for each document, to the date of the document itself as shown here.
For example the name is 201510132015123456.
The most common cause of this error is that you have created a PDF with a system-generated name, loaded it up to Caselines, but not yet entered the name of the document as shown here.
Bear in mind that you may be providing copies of documents if you correspond with other parties (and if there is litigation the same description will eventually be used when documents are listed in a court/tribunal hearing bundle which contains both your documents and the other side’s documents) so use an objective description which will be meaningful to others and not just a description which is meaningful to you.
The stages of court/tribunal proceedings may feel like events in the distant future but if you use suitable document names from the beginning, you will find that it will save much time, and avoid much potential confusion, later on. One of the reasons why, historically, litigation has been so expensive is that, before the widespread availability of computers, solicitors were needed to process paper copies of documents as the litigation proceeded, collating different sets of documents, adding bundle page numbers, typing up different lists of documents at different stages, etc. Providing you use, from the start, document names which will be meaningful throughout the litigation process, you will be able to carry out many of document handling stages of litigation very quickly.
The guiding principle is to use a description which will be meaningful to everyone. For example do not use
Letter sent out
Letter from John to Me
Letter sent to John
Letter received from Paul Jones
Letter me to surveyor
Letter Jane Jones to John Smith
Letter John Smith to Jane Jones
Letter Jane Jones to John Smith
Letter Paul Jones to Jane Jones
Letter Jane Jones to Hewitt and Co
See here for a more detailed description of the names to use for different types of document or use this question and answer dialogue to quickly check what file name to give to a document when in doubt.
The title of a document should identify the document concisely, referring to key and uncontentious things such as the general type of document and the author and addressee (or land name or title number if a land document). It should not be a precis of what the document says (because it should not be necessary for someone to read through a document just to check that it is the document you are referring to) and should not be contentious (i.e. it should be a neutral identification of the document which the other side could agree with) so Letter John Smith to Jane Jones should be used rather than Letter about outrageous delay.
as shown here.
This is to alert me (and anyone else who may be concerned in any future litigation) that their omission is not due to, for example, any paper misfeed when you scanned in the documents: on the contrary you found the pages missing when you came to scan them in. On the other hand if you have deliberately not loaded all pages of a document into Caselines (for example because you think only the first page of a document is relevant and there are many pages all of which are dog-eared and would have to be fed one by one into your scanner) it is important to make this clear like this:-
so as to alert me (and anyone else who may be concerned in any future litigation) that there are other pages which could seen if necessary. Generally speaking is is much easier for everyone if you load all pages of a document into Caselines from the start but the most important thing is to make clear, in the document title, that not all pages have been loaded where that is the case.
The body (i.e. the message part) of an email has been loaded to Caselines. It appears that the email had attachments but the attachments have not been loaded into Caselines.
To ensure that attachments are included, create PDFs from the emails using the procedure explained here.
Since it is easy to load attachments into Caselines with the email message, there is generally no reason not to do so but if for some reason you do not intend to do so at this stage (for example because you think the attachments themselves are not relevant) it is important to make this clear like this
The information on this page about specific computer techniques is provided for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate and up to date at the time it was written but no responsibility for its accuracy, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by me. You should satisfy yourself, before using any of the techniques, software or services described, that the techniques are appropriate for your purposes and that the software or service is reliable.
Any explanation about naming conventions or other matters in the context of tribunal or court procedure is only an overview and in order to be reasonably concise I have had to leave some details out - details which are likely to affect what the procedural law would say about your own situation. So please do not rely on the above but contact me for advice.
This page was lasted updated in November 2016. Disclaimer