Removing duplicates in a bundle
Removing duplicates in a bundle
Time is wasted if there is more than one copy of the same document in a final hearing bundle. When reading through the hearing bundle if the reader comes across a document which they think is the same as a document they have read elsewhere in the bundle they may then feel they need to try to locate the copy they have already read and compare it, to check that it really is the same, before deciding whether or not they need to read through the copy they have just come across. This wastes time. Also sometimes the reader will be looking at a chronologically arranged section and be asking themselves questions such "are the photos on this range of pages a complete set of all the photos taken between 2012 and 2015?". If the reader is aware that there are other photos elsewhere in the bundle (not arranged chronologically) they may feel that they have to locate them just to check that they are duplicates of ones in the range already found and not additional to them. That also takes time. So duplication should generally be avoided.
A number of copies of a document may be candidates for inclusion in a final hearing bundle. A witness statement may be accompanied by a copy of each document referred to in it labelled with an exhibit mark such as JJS27. If more than one witness refers to a document then there may be two or more exhibited copies, and at the disclosure of documents stage both parties may have disclosed copies - e.g. if a letter was sent in the past by one party to the other the Respondent may produce a copy and the Applicant may also produce a cop. To avoid duplication generally only one copy of a document will be included in the final hearing bundle. How do you decide which copy to include?
For photos and diagrams it is particularly important that the best quality copy is included, but for most documents which consist only of typed text there is no need to spend too long deciding which copy is of slightly better quality as long as the copy which it is decided to use is clear.
You don't necessarily have to include a copy with an exhibit label on it - In the Final Hearing Bundle the exhibit marks (or other prefixed reference numbers) by which a document is referred to in statements will be in the index entry and bookmark for the single copy of the document which is selected for inclusion so it is not always necessary to include the actual labelled copy.
Copy of Document How referred to in statement How labelled in bookmark/index entry
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 (unlabelled) ASC12 Not included in bundle
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 (unlabelled) RSC5 RSC5 ASC12 JJS23 HGT31
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 (labelled JJS23) JJS23 Not included in bundle
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 (labelled HGT31) HGT31 Not included in bundle
Normally the clearest copy should be the only copy included but if a disclosed document is a photo, plan, or diagram then it might be necessary to include both the clearest copy and another copy because justice must always be done to what the witness was looking at when they signed their statement. For example -
A witness might exhibit a poor copy of a photo or plan and say something about it which appears (from better copies of the same photo or plan which are available) to be incorrect. For example they might say in their statement that the exhibited photo of a piece of land shows that at the time it was taken the land was overgrown with no signs of cultivation. Since that is what they are saying the exhibited copy should be included (and be identified as the exhibit. It would normally be positioned chronologically next to the better quality copy which should also be included.
Copy of Document How referred to in statement Number in bookmark/index entry
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 ASC12 Not included in bundle
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 RSC5 RSC5 ASC12 HGT31
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 (poor quality labelled JJS23) JJS23 JJS23
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 (labelled HGT31) HGT31 Not included in bundle
a witness may exhibit an enlarged copy of a photo and say, in their statement, that it shows some feature. Enlarged copies of photos do not always show things clearly - in fact pixelation may make things less clear than in an unenlarged copy - but since the witness is referring to an enlarged copy which is exhibited and saying that they can see some feature in it that enlarged copy should be included in the bundle and be identified as that exhibit. It would normally be positioned chronologically next to the unenlarged copy which should also be included.
A witness might take a copy of a photo or plan and make a mark on it such as an arrow pointing to some feature that they are going to refer to in their statement, and exhibit that marked copy. They may or may not also exhibit the unmarked photo or plan. The marked copy (identified as the exhibit) should be placed immediately after the statement (as an exception to the usual rule). If an unmarked copy is exhibited then that should be placed next to the marked copy (and be identified as an exhibit). Whether or not the unmarked copy is exhibited by that witness, the best quality unmarked copy should be added in the normal chronological position.
At the disclosure of documents stage native copies of JPGs and other computer documents are typically exchanged containing metadata, and then, or later, an image-and-metadata PDF "print" showing both the image and relevant items of metadata may be produced by a party for those photos where that party wishes to rely on metadata. If, when a witness refers in their statement to a photo by exhibit mark, they are looking at a paper copy of the image-only document then the image-only document needs to be included in the usual chronological position (and be flagged as that exhibit) even if an image-and-metadata PDF print is also included. Similarly, of course, if the witness was looking at an image-and-metadata print when they signed their statement, the image-and-metadata print must be included (and be flagged as that exhibit) notwithstanding that the original image-only copy may also be included (e.g. because it is clearer than the image within the image-and-metadata PDF print).
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