When a final hearing bundle is being prepared, it is important to ensure that it is possible to easily identify which document is being referred to every time an exhibit mark is mentioned in a statement within the bundle. The best way of doing this is outlined in point 1 below. Other, less helpful, ways are explained in points 2 to 4 below in decreasing order of usefulness.
1. The proper way of handling exhibited documents in an eBundle is to position the exhibited documents (labelled, or unlabelled if the unlabelled copy is clearer, or if the label was applied not to the document itself but to a frontsheet), along with other, unexhibited, documents, in the most appropriate section and position within the bundle - generally chronologically. Then stamp in the right hand margin of each statement within the bundle, directly opposite the mention of each exhibit mark, the bundle page number of the first (or only) page of that exhibited document. A hyperlink should also be added.
Generally it is only necessary to stamp the page number of the first page of the exhibited document because it should be obvious, when the reader turns to the exhibited document, how many pages it is and which is the last page, but if there could be any doubt (for example if the exhibited document is an email with an attachment) it is helpful to either:
print the exhibit mark(s) for the exhibited document in the top right hand corner of each page of the document, or
include in the stamp both the first and last page numbers.
The above should be done for every document referred to in each statement whether the statement is a witness statement or a statement of case. Not only does marking up statements in the right hand margin in this way make it easier for all users of the bundle, when reading through a statement in the bundle, to quickly refer to documents mentioned, but it also acts as a double-check that no document referred to in any statement has been accidentally missed out of the bundle.
Often the work needed to do the above is shared so that after the bundle producing party has produced a final draft bundle with the final page numbers which are not going to change, the other side marks up a copy of its statements in manuscript and sends that copy to the bundle producing party so that the bundle producing party can use that information at the same time as working out what page numbers to stamp on its own statements within the bundle.
Whatever the exact procedure and sharing of work, it is of course necessary that in the end the parties agree that the statement annotations do correctly identify each document referred to. Typically the bundle producing party indicates its agreement to the accuracy of the page number annotations provided by the other side by stamping those numbers on the other side's statements within the bundle and, having stamped both side's statements within the bundle, the bundle producing party can then send the finished result to the other side asking them to confirm that they agree with how it has been marked up. There should be no difficulty in agreeing the accuracy of markups because it is a simple administrative task to check, but if, for some reason, there is no agreement that the annotations on some particular statement are correct, it would be necessary for the party producing the bundle to ensure that sufficient labelled copies of documents exhibited by that statement are available to prove - if there should be a query at the final hearing - that the exhibited documents in the chronological sections are correctly identified by the statement markups. On the question of proof see the subsection at the bottom of this page.
2. Marking up statements (method 1 above) is the best way of arranging exhibits. It takes time but it is worth it. If, however, statements are not marked up another - albeit less satisfactory - way of handling exhibits is to position the exhibited documents, along with other, unexhibited, documents in the most appropriate position within the bundle - generally chronologically - as before, but instead of marking up statements to point to the documents, simply rely on the fact that the exhibit mark(s) for each exhibited document appear in the index. (An entry for a document in the index may have more than one exhibit mark because the same document may have been referred to by multiple witnesses using different exhibit marks.) This is less satisfactory because although time is saved by not having to mark up statements within the bundle, it takes readers longer to read through each statement, referring to documents as they go, because they have to look up in the index the page number of each document referred to. The situation is helped somewhat if every mention of an exhibit mark in statements within the bundle is hyperlinked but that is not easy to do automatically if there are any exhibits which contain a paginated collection of more than one document and, in any event, hyperlinks do not help a reader who is using the hardcopy.
Of course once the bundle has been produced in the way described above it is necessary for the parties to agree that the index and bookmarks do correctly identify each exhibited document with the correct exhibit mark(s). If, for some reason, there is no agreement about that, it would be necessary, as explained under (1) above) for the party producing the eBundle to ensure that sufficient labelled copies of exhibited documents are available to prove - if there should be a query at the final hearing - that the exhibited documents in the chronological sections are correctly identified in the index. On the question of proof see the subsection at the bottom of this page.
3. If witness statements are not marked up with page numbers, and exhibit marks are not included in the index entries for copies of exhibited documents in the chronological sections, then copies of each exhibit would need to be appear in exhibit number order following the witness statement they are referred to in. This arrangement is not to be recommended because whilst a reader going through a statement can locate the copy of each exhibit following the statement, finding the copy of the same document in the chronological sections - so that it can be seen in chronological context - would, in each case, take time. It is even worse if there are no copies of exhibited documents in the chronological sections and the only copies are the exhibits themselves in exhibit number order following statements. It is true that in the case of an bundle for an urgent hearing to consider the grant of interim relief (e.g. an interim injunction to prevent demolition of a structure pending a full final hearing to determine who owns it) the bundle for that hearing may simply contain the statement of the party applying for interim relief, followed by its labelled exhibits in exhibit mark order, followed by the statement of the other party, followed by its labelled exhibits in exhibit mark order, but that is because there may be no time to arrange exhibited documents in any more useful order and also because the number of documents in a bundle for an interim relief hearing will be limited (compared to a bundle for a final hearing) so that sequence is less important.
4. The final possibility – which should always be avoided but is mentioned for completeness - would be to have in the eBundle unlabelled exhibited documents in some logical order but without any indication (in index, statement markups, or in any other way) as to the exhibit mark or marks of each exhibited document. This option is obviously not acceptable because it would mean that there was no way of determining with certainty what document a witness was referring to by the exhibit mark in their statement. No doubt it would be possible in some instances to work out what document must be intended to be referred to by the witness but, given that the whole purpose of having documents exhibited is to remove doubt, arranging matters so that an educated guess still has to be made is not a sensible way of proceeding.
Once the bundle has been produced in the way described in (1), (2), or (3) above it is necessary for the parties to agree that the statement annotations and/or exhibit mark(s) in the top right hand corner of exhibited documents, and/or index entries do correctly identify each exhibited document. There should not be any difficulty in this being agreed because it is a simple - albeit slightly laborious - administrative task to check, but if, for some reason, there is no agreement about this, it would be necessary for the party producing the eBundle to ensure that labelled copies of exhibited documents are available to prove - if there should be a query at the final hearing - that the exhibited documents in the chronological sections are correctly identified. This could be in a separate section of the main eBundle but, if so, that section would not be intended for general use (a copy of every document in it will also be in other sections) but just for reference should there be any dispute or query, and a note should be added to the bundle explaining this. In some instances an exhibited document in the chronological sections may be a labelled copy but often it will be an unlabelled copy (because, for example, the unlabelled copy is clearer, or because the document was not labelled on its face but with a frontsheet) but a labelled copy would be included in the separate reference section. Sometimes it might be that the exhibited document in the chronological sections is labelled but the exhibit mark on the label is not the only exhibit mark by which the document is exhibited. For example the same document might be exhibited by one witness as JJS15 and by another witness as PMA9. If a copy labelled JJS15 is included in the chronological sections, the copy labelled PMA9 would still need to be included in the separate reference section. If the copy in the chronological sections is unlabelled then, of course, the separate reference section would need to include labelled copies of both PMA9 and JJS15. Because the separate reference section is intended as proof it should contain the best available evidence. So if, as will often the case, a witness signed the label on paper copies of an exhibit but unsigned labelled copies of the exhibit were sent, accompanying the statement referred to them, by the party now producing the eBundle, to the other side, the signed labelled copies should be scanned in as PDFs and be included in the separate reference section. Having to have a separate reference section means, of course, that the eBundle is larger than it would otherwise need to be but it is necessary if there is no agreement as to the correctness of statement annotations and index.
Disclaimer
This information page is designed to be used only by clients of John Antell who have entered into an agreement for the provision of legal services. The information in it is necessarily of a general nature and will not be applicable to every case: it is intended to be used only in conjunction with more specific advice to the individual client about the individual case. This information page should not be used by, or relied on, by anyone else.
This page was lasted updated in April 2025. Disclaimer.