Bundle generating services often have a facility whereby you can grant direct read or update access to another person so that they can log on and see and update the database of documents held within it for the case database from which versions of an Bundle can be generated. These facilities are intended primarily for lawyers on the same side to collaborate.
It is possible to use this facility to give read or even update access to the other side but there are normally good reasons why you should not do this.
The tribunal directions will typically require one party (usually the party bring the proceedings) to produce and deliver the eBundle. Of course the other side should co-operate but one party has the primary responsibility. There are good reasons for this. Part of the process of producing the eBundle involves deciding which copy of each document to include as normally duplicates should be excluded.
The process also involves arranging the documents in a logical order in sections. Usually there is a documentary evidence section containing documents which came into existence in the ordinary course of events in the past, such as photos, letters, purchase orders, invoices, written agreements, emails etc., arranged chronologically. Having a single chronological run of documents, whether contract, purchase order, invoice, letter, email etc. so that the sequence of events can be appreciated is typical but sometimes there will be good reason for having some documents of a particular category in a separate section. For example sometimes photographs are included in chronological sequence with all the other documents in a single section, but sometimes it is more appropriate to have a separate section just for photos. Depending what the case is about the photos may show not events but rather the state of land which changes gradually over a number of years. In this case it is usually more helpful to have all the photos together in their own section (in chronological order) rather than having them included in a single section interspersed with other documents. In a case concerning the rights of different property owners, it may be appropriate to have formal title deeds in a section by themselves, or a section for each property. Other examples where it might be appropriate to have a separate section for a certain group of evidential documents might include the situation where there are a large number of bank statements to be included. If selected bank statements are included in the bundle in order to prove that specific payments were made or received then those statements would be likely to be included in the main chronological section, but if a complete collection of bank statements for an account over a number of years are to be included in the bundle to show that a particular payment was never received or made or to show a pattern of regular receipts and payments, or some financial trend, then a separate section containing that set of bank statements in chronological order might be more appropriate.
If each side has update access to the system and is seeking to arrange documents as described above then the two sides will almost inevitably have different approaches and get in each other's way.
Furthermore there is a problem of accountability. The two sides in litigation are in conflict and in order for litigation to proceed to a conclusion in an orderly and efficient way the tribunal holds the ring and one way it does this is by having procedural rules and giving specific directions to each party with deadlines. For example there will be a deadline by which the party directed to produce the eBundle must have completed that task and sent out the final version of the eBundle. That deadline will be set to give good time for the parties' barristers to prepare by the date appointed for the hearing. There will be a deadline for the other party to say in writing what documents they require to be included (the directions might say that they are to do this before they see the first draft of the eBundle or alternatively the directions may require a draft of the eBundle to be sent to them first). Under this system if something goes wrong - the Bundle is not ready on time or it is sent out but omits documents the other side wishes to be included, or it is poorly arranged, it should be possible to work out which party was to blame. Each side will have something in writing and can prove when they complied with the directions applying to them, and when the other side complied with the directions applying to them, and, all other things being equal, the party which first missed a deadline will be the party which is held responsible for the problem and it is they - if anyone - who will be subject to some sanction. And ultimately it is the possibility of sanctions which keeps things on track. By contrast if you were to have an arrangement whereby each side has update access to the system, and each side works on it concurrently, that could not readily be mapped to a system of directions and deadlines and, if something went wrong - the Bundle is not ready on time or it is sent out but omits documents a party wishes to be included, or it is poorly arranged - accountability would be lacking. The bundling system may very well have a log showing the detail of each action carried out by each party but it is not possible, from that mass of detail, to readily apportion responsibility, and without the ability to apportion responsibility it almost inevitably happens that the eBundle is late and more time than necessary is then spent on arguing about who is to blame.
It might in theory be possible to devise a bundling system which allowed for one side to be designated as primarily responsible and for the other side to enter online requests for updates to the eBundle Drafts - requests which could then be "accepted" and applied as appropriate by the primarily responsible party, and it might be possible to schedule the bulk making of requests, and then the bulk considerations of requests, in a way which could be mapped to tribunal deadlines, and to have a readily understandable audit trial which could prove who was responsible in case of problems. But I am not aware of any bundling systems which operate in this way. So for the moment, with present-day systems which can only grant general update capability (not a request/accept system) you should not grant direct update access to the other side.
Giving update access would inevitably mean giving read access as well and there are also reasons why read access should not be given as explained below.
It is best not to give direct read access to the other side either, for the following reasons.
You want the other side to respond in a structured way to draft eBundles you send to them. If you grant them direct read access they may comment in an unstructured way based on what they see as and when they choose to log on to the system and then when you send them the draft eBundles as well they may (wrongly) feel they do not have to comment.
At any point in time you are likely to have some documents set in an "excluded" status - e.g. in a special folder which is not included when you generate eBundles. Unless the system actually allows you to hide those excluded folders from the other side's view, it will be potentially confusing for the other side to see "under the bonnet".
There might be legally privileged documents in an excluded folder which the other side are not entitled to see and which you don't want them to see. Generally it is good practice not to have any legally privileged documents in the bundling system (except possibly if you are producing a separate costs bundle only to be deployed after the case has been decided but then they should be in a separate database) but accidents can happen. Even if you realise fairly quickly that you have loaded a privileged document and then delete it you do not know whether the other side might have logged on and seen it meanwhile. You are more likely to avoid accidentally disclosing privileged documents if you only send draft eBundles to the other side and check each as it is sent than if you grant direct read access to the other side.
The tribunal will direct one party to prepare the eBundle - to be used at the final hearing - in collaboration with the other party. If you, the eBundle-producing party, generate a draft eBundle and send it to the other side, and the other side confirm in writing that it includes all the documents they require, then there is a record of their agreement and a record of the eBundle PDF they agreed to (in case there should be any dispute later about what was included in the eBundle). But if you were to grant the other side direct read access and simply invite them to log on and confirm that all the documents they require are present in the "included" folders, a dispute could later arise because there is no permanent record of exactly what documents there were in the system, with what status, at the point in time that the other side logged on and gave you their confirmation. Even if the other side actually listed all the documents present that they agreed to, a dispute could still arise because, later on when the final eBundle is received, they may say that a document described with a particular name is in fact a different document to what they were expecting and query what document was actually in the system when, earlier on, they logged on and gave you their confirmation. But if you had actually sent a draft eBundle and confirmation was based on that then it will be possible to check back and see exactly what it contained.
The tribunal directions may actually require you, as part of the process of producing the eBundle, to provide a draft bundle index to the other side by a particular date and, if so, you do have to do that. Providing effectively the same information by giving the other side read access would not, in itself, comply with such a direction.
So, for all these reasons, you should not grant the other side direct read access to your bundling system either.
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 May 2025. Disclaimer