Removing duplicates in a bundle
Removing duplicates in a bundle
A 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 of the same document with different exhibit marks. Similarly a copy of a key document may be exhibited by both parties' statements of case. Or additional copies of the same document may be provided at the disclosure of documents stage by at least one of the parties. Possibly both parties will have disclosed copies of the document - 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 copy.
To avoid duplication you can do either of the following (or a combination of the two):-
At the point where you are about to load a document copy to your document management system (the system which will later be used to generate the Final Hearing Bundle) check whether another copy of the same document is already loaded and, if it is, do not load the additional copy, or
(Having previously loaded document copies without initially checking for duplicates) go through and check for duplicates, moving any duplicates found to a special folder named e.g. Duplicates - exclude from final bundle and leaving only one copy of each document in a normal "included" folder. Alternatively you could simply delete the duplicate from your document management system.
Whichever approach you take you need to ensure that exhibit aliases are preserved so
Whenever you take a decision to not load a duplicate, add its exhibit mark (if it has one) as an alias of the copy which is already loaded
Whenever you take a decision to exclude a duplicate which is already loaded, by moving it to a Duplicates - exclude from final bundle folder (or by deleting it), add its aliases to the aliases of the copy which is to remain included.
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 by which a document is referred to in statements will all, as aliases, be associated with the single copy of the document which is selected for inclusion so it is not necessary to include the actual labelled copy.
Copy of Document How referred to in statement Aliases
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 in some exceptional circumstances 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 actual exhibit by having its document name prefixed by the exhibit mark). 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 Aliases Comment
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 R5 R5 ASC12 HGT31
JJS23 - Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 JJS23 JJS23 poor quality labelled JJS23
Photo taken at 13.52.18 on 24 Aug 2024 HGT31 Not included in bundle labelled HGT31
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 May 2025 Disclaimer