How to Create a Final Hearing Bundle using eBrief Ready
How to Create a Final Hearing Bundle using eBrief Ready
For a general explanation of what a Final Hearing Bundle (Trial Bundle) is see here.
The method explained below is an example of how to create a Final Hearing Bundle using the eBrief Ready system. For simplicity, it assumes that a copy of every statement and of every document disclosed by either side has already been loaded to eBrief Ready. Loading a copy of every disclosed document is convenient if the vast majority of documents are likely to be included in the eventual final hearing bundle, or if the total number of disclosed documents is, anyway, only in the hundreds. If instead the number of disclosed documents is in the thousands and most will not be included then a different procedure may be better.
Check Documents in eBrief Ready
You may well already have documents loaded to eBrief Ready if you have used eBrief Ready at previous stages of the litigation process such as for disclosure of documents. If not you need to load documents now. All statements and documents disclosed by both sides during the litigation process should be loaded into appropriate sections with each having, within eBrief Ready, a concise Document Description and a Date.
A copy of all disclosed and exhibited documents should be loaded
It is useful to have in eBrief Ready, before starting the bundle production process, a copy of all the documents which have been exchanged between the parties during the litigation process (inter-partes correspondence etc. excepted on which see below). Key documents will probably have been exchanged along with statements of case at the commencement of the process, then there will probably have been a main Disclosure of Documents stage where all other relevant documents are exchanged some of which will later on be exhibited and accompany witness statements. Only relevant documents should have been exchanged so, in a typical case, a copy of probably the majority of documents exchanged will be needed in the eventual final hearing bundle.
It is true that there may be some documents exchanged which do not need to be included in the final bundle - the other side might for some reason have sent a few documents which you think are not relevant and so would only be included in the bundle if the other side insists. But it is usually best to load into eBrief Ready at least one copy of every document which has been exchanged. There is always the possibility of the other side being inefficient and asking late in the bundle production process for documents to be included, but if you have already loaded into eBrief Ready a copy of every document which either side might legitimately want to have included in the final bundle, you will be able to deal with any late request quickly because:
A copy of the document requested will already be in eBrief Ready - in a section set to Excluded status - and all you have to do is move it to an Included section.
The fact that the document is already in eBrief Ready indicates that you have already determined that it is a document which was exchanged and so the other side is entitled to have it included if they wish - so you don't have to take time to check back to confirm that it has previously been exchanged.
So a copy of every document should be loaded that does not mean that all copies of each document should be loaded. Generally only one copy of each document - the best copy - will be loaded. So if the statement of Mr Smith exhibits a copy of a certain document giving it an exhibit mark of JJS29 and the statement of Mr Jones exhibits the a copy of the same document giving it an exhibit mark of JMJ12, only one of those copies would be loaded but the single loaded copy would be identified in the eBrief Ready with both exhibit marks.
That said there are a few exceptional circumstances where the exhibited copy is very specific to the statement which exhibits it and where you need to load the exhibited copy even though another copy is already in eBrief Ready.
Ref and Exhibit fields
The Ref field and the Exhibit field which you define in eBrief Ready are together used to record where a particular copy of a document loaded came from, and to cross reference that copy with the references of any other copies of the same document which have not been loaded.
A document copy referred to in, and accompanying, a witness statement or statement of case will have an exhibit mark e.g. JJS12 or other prefixed reference number e.g. R8 and those references will need to appear in the eventual Final Hearing Bundle and so each reference needs to be recorded when the document is loaded. If a document copy is simply disclosed by a party (perhaps with other documents accompanied by a numbered list but not accompanying a witness statement or statement of case) just a letter indicating which party disclosed it (e.g. R for the Respondent) should be recorded.
The two fields Ref and Exhibit are used in each document copy loaded in the following way:
If Ref is blank then the document copy was originally provided accompanying a witness statement or statement of case, and the first (or only) entry in Exhibit is the copy's reference e.g. JJS12 or R8. If any copy of the same document accompanied any other statement, and was not loaded to avoid duplication then the reference for that not-loaded copy will follow next in Exhibit so that Exhibit may contain several references each separated by a single space, the first being the reference for the copy itself and subsequent references being for other copies of the same document not loaded.
If Ref is not blank then the document copy was originally disclosed (not accompanying a witness statement or statement of case). For example if Ref is A the copy was disclosed by the Applicant. If any copies of the same document accompanied any statements, and they were not loaded to avoid duplication, then the references for those not-loaded copies will be in Exhibit.
The way in which the two fields are utilised as described above is slightly complex but that complexity is necessary to ensure both that information about the origin of every document copy (i.e. how it was introduced into the litigation process) is available if there is a query during the bundle production process, and also that only references needed by a user of the eventual Final Hearing Bundle will be in the Exhibit field and therefore appear in the bundle index (if there are unnecessary references in the bundle index then references which are needed are more difficult to find). Always remember that, taking the two fields, Ref and Exhibit together in that order the first non-blank entry will always be the reference for the actual document copy itself and any subsequent entries will be references to other not-loaded copies of the same document.
Here are some examples:
Date Document Description Ref Exhibit Explanation
24 Aug 2024 Letter Smith to Jones R5 JJS23 This copy was provided with the Respondent's statement of case - document number 5.
JJS23 is the exhibit mark of a witness exhibit copy of the same document which has not been loaded.
16 Sep 2024 Letter Phillips to More A JJS10 This copy was disclosed by the Applicant (with a disclosure list).
JJS10 is the exhibit mark of a witness exhibit copy of the same document which has not been loaded.
9 Oct 2024 Letter Baker to Miller A This copy was disclosed by the Applicant (with a disclosure list).
10 Oct 2024 Letter Miller to Baker R This copy was disclosed by the Respondent (with a disclosure list).
Note about County Court
Note that there are still some courts which have rules (originally introduced before computers or even photocopiers existed when all copying had to be done by hand by a copyist, which was expensive) which require each party, at the main disclosure of documents stage, to provide just a numbered list of documents, and each party is then only required to provide copies of documents if the other side specifically asks for copies of specified documents. If the case for which you are producing the bundle is in one of these courts using such rules you should have asked for copies of all documents on the other side's list at the disclosure of documents stage (except for any items of inter partes correspondence and interim application forms/accompanying witness statements you are sure you already have copies of) because otherwise you run the risk of being taken by surprise by the other side producing, at the bundle production stage, a copy of a significant document you have not seen before, which was on their list, and demanding that it be included in the bundle. If, for whatever reason, you did not ask for copies at the disclosure of documents stage you should obtain copies now and load copies of any documents not already loaded so that at least one copy of all documents which the other side might legitimately want to have included in the bundle are in eBrief Ready.
Inter partes correspondence
The vast majority of inter-partes correspondence and correspondence with the tribunal - even if technically admissible - will be about administrative matters occurring during the litigation process and will not be of any continuing relevance for the final hearing, but if any individual item of inter-partes correspondence should need to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle it can be loaded as and when the need for it is identified. Consequently there is no need to routinely load all inter-partes correspondence into eBrief Ready. Some people find it convenient, if they have been making use of eBrief Ready to store documents throughout the whole litigation process, to routinely load inter-partes correspondence (and correspondence to and from the tribunal), as it arrives or is sent, to an INTER-PARTES CORRESPONDENCE section in eBrief Ready and if this is done then that entire INTER-PARTES CORRESPONDENCE folder should be excluded when creating a bundle. Then if any individual items within the INTER-PARTES CORRESPONDENCE section are identified as relevant for the final hearing they can, when identified, be copied and the copy moved to an appropriate Included folder.
Likewise there may be interim applications by either party to the tribunal for matters such as seeking permission for the use of expert evidence, or seeking a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending the final hearing, the latter normally requiring witness statements to be produced for (and in response to) that interim application. Sometimes some interim application forms, and/or accompanying witness statements need to be in the Final Hearing Bundle because they are relevant to the particular issues which the judge is to decide at the final hearing but usually the majority of interim application forms/accompanying witness statements, whilst they served their purpose at the time, are not relevant for the final hearing and so ought not to be included. So there is no need to have routinely loaded all interim application forms etc. into eBrief Ready but you should read carefully through any witness statement accompanying any interim application form and load the witness statement to eBrief Ready if it is relevant for the final hearing. If the witness statement you are loading exhibits any documents, check that copies of those documents are also loaded to eBrief Ready.
Start off by creating (if it does not already exist) a folder in eBrief Ready at the end named Duplicates - set this folder to be excluded when creating a bundle. Also create a folder named Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle and set that folder as excluded also.
Go through each statement in eBrief Ready (both statements of case and witness statements) in turn and, every time the statement refers to a document by exhibit mark or prefixed reference number, find a copy of the document in eBrief Ready and check that it is identified with the exhibit mark/prefixed reference number. There might possibly be more than one copy of the same document in eBrief Ready and if you tap the button to sort into chronological order any duplicates should be easy to see. Generally only one copy of each document referred to should remain in an included folder and any duplicates should be moved to the Duplicates folder (which is excluded). When moving a duplicate copy to the Duplicates folder you should ensure that the copy which has been selected to remain is identified with its exhibit mark as the following example illustrates:-
Date Document Description How referred to in statement Status of copy was Identified as exhibit... now identified as exhibit...
24 Aug 2014 Letter Smith to Jones JJS23 decided not to load
24 Aug 2014 Letter Smith to Jones A12 moved to Duplicates section (excluded) A12 A12 JJS23
24 Aug 2014 Letter Smith to Jones R5 In an Included section R5 R5 A12 JJS23
In the above example the statement of Mr Smith refers to the exhibited copy of the document - exhibit JJS23. When that copy was first received it was not in fact loaded and instead its exhibit mark JJS23 was added to another copy (A12) of the same document which was loaded. Now, to avoid duplication, the A12 copy is being moved to the excluded Duplicates section and its exhibit marks are being added to the copy which has been selected to remain included - R5. The fact that the Included R5 copy now has A12 means that someone reading the Applicant's statement of case in the final bundle and seeing the A12 reference can tell that the included copy is a copy of the document which the statement of case is referring to. And the fact that the R5 copy also has JJS23 means that someone reading Mr Smith's statement and seeing the JJS23 reference can tell that the copy included is a copy of the same document referred to.
There are some exceptional circumstances in which two copies of the same document might end up both being selected to be left included. However at all times each distinct exhibit mark must only be associated with one included document copy.
If a statement does not give an exhibit mark (or statement of case reference) but nevertheless clearly indicates the document it is referring to (e.g. "The Conveyance from John Smith to Peter Jones dated 16 February 1998") you will be able to find a copy of the document in eBrief Ready and be able to add a asterisk to it to identify it as a referred-to document. Any duplicate copies of documents which you add an asterisk to should be moved to the Duplicates folder.
If the description in a statement is more vague (e.g. "I wrote a letter to John Smith later that week...") and you can't decide which of two or three documents is the document the witness is referring to in their statement, add an asterisk to all of them to indicate that each of them might be a referred-to document. Any duplicate copies of documents you add a tag to should be moved to the Duplicates folder.
If a statement refers to an audio or video file it is good practice for the statement to refer to the length of the audio/video file, in minutes and seconds, as well as its date when identifying it, and for the Document Description of the file to include the length. Whilst the Document Description appears in the index at the start of the Final Hearing Bundle and there is a placeholder page for it, the audio/video file itself (e.g. the mp3 or mp4 file) is not embedded in the eBundle PDF and will be provided to the tribunal (and other parties) as a separate file. The Document Description should therefore include the case name and number as well as the length like this:
Smith v Jones AB123456 Video of No 18 Garden 23 Nov 2017 - 3min 32s
so that when the audio/video file is forwarded from eBrief Ready to the tribunal, along with the eBundle PDF itself, the filename of the audio/video file (which will be the same as the Document Description) will contain case name and number information just as the eBundle PDF filename itself does.
At this point in the bundle production process every document in an included folder which is referred to in any statement will be identified. You now need to go through every other document in the Included sections (every document with a non-blank Exhibit field) and decide whether it is a document which will also need to be included in the bundle because some documents may be relevant even though not referred to in any statement. When you decide that a document is to be included, check whether the copy you first find is the only copy of the document in eBrief Ready or whether there are other copies. If there is more than one copy keep the best copy in an Included folder and move any poorer duplicates to the Duplicates folder. If a document is not to be included, move all copies of it to the Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle folder. When deciding which documents to include bear the following in mind:-
If the other side have already (before you have had a chance to send out the first draft eBundle) sent you a list of documents they wish to be included, you need to check, before you move a document you do not need to rely on to the Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle section, whether it is on the other side's list and if it is, leave a copy in an Included section. Of course you don't necessarily have to have in an Included section the exact copy the other side has indicated on their list. For example if the other side has indicated document copy R7 to be included and there is another copy of the same document A19 which is clearer you might leave that copy in an Included section instead.
Instead of simply sending you a list the other side might have actually sent you copies of the documents they wish to be included. Usually it is best not to load up those copies which have just been provided but instead use them to identify which documents the other side wish to be left Included. If the copy just supplied is significantly better than the copies already loaded then you can consider loading it (and moving copies already loaded to the Duplicates section of course) but it is essential always to first check that a copy of the document is already in eBrief Ready. This is an important check because if a copy is not already in eBrief Ready that tells you that, on the face of it, the document the other side wish to now include was not previously sent by them to you as part of the litigation process (nor sent by you or the tribunal to them) - if it had been it would already be in eBrief Ready - so they are not entitled to have it included in the bundle (unless it is an item of inter-partes correspondence etc.). Generally a party is only entitled to have its document included if they disclosed it as directed by the tribunal. Otherwise they need special permission from the tribunal. (Sometimes the tribunal's directions provide that extra documents can be included without the tribunal's permission provided both sides agree.)
Instead of indicating specific documents they wish to have included the other side might have been more vague - e.g. perhaps saying that they want "all documents connected with the following issue..." It is not good practice to request the inclusion of documents in this imprecise way but the simplest thing to do in these circumstances may be to include a copy of each document you think they are referring to and, when you send the first draft to them, point out that their request was imprecise and ask them to confirm that everything they want to be included now is (or to indicate any further documents currently listed in Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle which they also require to be included).
Some of the documents you come across may be documents such as a map or aerial photograph or organisation chart which , whilst they don't actually prove anything in dispute one way or another, may nevertheless be useful to include to "set the scene".
If you identify an audio or video file to be included it is good practice to check that the Document Description of the file includes the length of the recording in minutes and seconds.
Whilst the Document Description of a video/audio file will appear in the index at the start of the Final Hearing Bundle and there is a placeholder page, the audio/video file itself (e.g. the mp3 or mp4 file) will not be embedded in the eBundle PDF and will be provided to the tribunal (and other parties) as a separate file. Whenever you identify an audio or video file to be included check that the Document Description includes the case name and number like this: Smith v Jones REF-2023-1234 Video of No 18 Garden 23 Nov 2017 - 3min 32s so that when the audio/video file comes to be forwarded from eBrief Ready to the tribunal, along with the eBundle PDF itself, the filename of the audio/video file (which will be the same as the Document Description) will contain case name and number information just as the eBundle PDF filename itself does.
Inter-Partes Correspondence
The vast majority of inter-partes correspondence and correspondence with the tribunal - even if technically admissible - will be about administrative matters occurring during the litigation process and will not be of any continuing relevance for the final hearing but occasionally there may be individual item of correspondence which need to be included. For example you might have written to the other side challenging the authenticity of a document they have disclosed, or at least querying the accuracy of its date, and so putting them on notice that they need to prove its provenance (preferably to you in advance if they can but otherwise at the final hearing). You will want to include any such correspondence. It might not already be in eBrief Ready so you might need to load it (or it might be in a special INTER-PARTES CORRESPONDENCE section set to Excluded in which case you will need to make a copy of it and move the copy to an Included section).
When you get to the agreed date to send out the first draft eBundle, how to do this is explained below. If it was agreed that the other side would first tell you what documents they wished to have included, and they have not done so by the deadline, you don't need to delay: they can tell you after they receive the first draft. Indeed receiving the first draft together with a list of Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle should prompt them to respond.
First of all create a single page blank Word document and load this blank bundle intro document at the top of the bundle so that it will be the first page after the index.
How to generate and send out the first unpaginated draft eBundle
Temporarily set the Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle section to Included and temporarily set all other sections to Excluded and create a unpaginated bundle by selecting the Hide Page Number option and the Do Not Repaginate options.
Then set the Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle section to Excluded, and set the sections which you temporarily set to Excluded back to Included (of course those sections which are permanently Excluded such as the Duplicates section remain Excluded), create a spreadsheet cross-referencing document names to exhibit marks and do a scan so that exhibit hyperlinks will be created, and create another unpaginated bundle.
Do not grant the other side direct access to the "matter" within eBrief Ready. Instead, you need to send them the DRAFT EBUNDLE PDF and the PRELIMINARY LIST OF DOCUMENTS NOT TO BE INCLUDED PDF.
When sending the two PDFs, invite the other side to indicate if there are any documents listed in the PRELIMINARY LIST OF DOCUMENTS NOT TO BE INCLUDED PDF which they wish to see included.
Note: It is possible that the specific directions given by the tribunal may require an initial draft Index to be formally "served" in the way that documents such as Statements of Case have to be formally "served". Of course providing an initial full draft bundle which includes the index would satisfy the requirement to provide a draft index, but if the initial draft index has to be formally served, and if the rules and/or practice directions require, for example, formal service to be in paper form, then you will probably not want to serve in that way a full draft Bundle so, in that case, in order to comply with the tribunal's directions, you can print just the index pages, and formally serve those by whatever method is required, at the same time as you send the full draft eBundle by other convenient means such as via a download link.
The usual rule is that the bundle, eventually provided to the tribunal, and to both sides, in advance of the final hearing, must contain copies of all documents which the judge will be asked to consider during the hearing (apart from the skeleton argument document which each party's barrister normally provides separately later and any agreed summary documents which the tribunal has directed to be supplied separately). Some people think that they can bring along to the hearing and use copies of additional documentary evidence as well but in general tribunals do not allow this. All copies of documentary evidence to be referred to by either side at the hearing must be in the bundle. The tribunal directions might require each party to bring along original paper documents as well in case they need to be checked but you can't generally rely on an original document if a copy is not in the bundle. If a party discovers at the last minute that something has been accidentally missed out of the bundle then the tribunal might give special permission to use it but equally it might refuse or there might be a costs penalty so now is a good time, while you are waiting to hear from the other side, to take the opportunity to double-check that every piece of evidence you want to be available for the judge to look at at the hearing is in an Included section. If you realise there is an extra document you need, move it to an Included section and generate another draft eBundle.
When you hear back from the other side, consider whether all the documents requested by the other side are actually relevant. Providing a document was previously sent between the parties during the litigation process in accordance with deadlines set by the tribunal, and providing it is not subject to legal privilege, you cannot generally refuse to include it, if the other side insists it should be included, even if you consider the document irrelevant to the issues to be decided at the hearing. But if there are a large number of apparently irrelevant documents which the other side asks to be included it is worth querying with them (in writing) why they think they are relevant. Your query may prompt them to reconsider. If they continue to insist on the documents being included (and you have no reason to object other than irrelevance) then generally they should be, but you should create a further Included section in eBrief Ready at the end named Selected Correspondence re Bundle Production and load to it a copy of the correspondence. Then if the judge, at the hearing, makes a criticism of the fact that a large number of irrelevant documents have been included in the bundle, and requires to know which party was responsible, it will be possible to show from the correspondence that they were only included at the insistence of the other party and that you did query it at the time. You should not wait too long for a reply after you have queried whether documents requested are really needed: you need to keep to the timetable you have set. If you do not get a quick reply, you can include the documents for the moment and carry on. Including the documents is not difficult to do - as the documents will already be in eBrief Ready and it is just a matter of moving them to an Included section - and if the other side eventually say that some are not needed after all you can then move them back to the Documents not currently proposed to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle section and generate another draft eBundle.
A party may also legitimately object to the inclusion of a document sent between the parties which is subject to "without prejudice" privilege. It is unlikely that there will be a dispute about the principle that "without prejudice" documents should not be included but there might be a dispute about whether a particular document really is "without prejudice" or not, the presence or absence of the actual words "without prejudice" on the document not necessarily being conclusive.
Because of queries and issues such as these it is not uncommon to send several draft unpaginated eBundles. You only need to send one LIST OF DOCUMENTS NOT TO BE INCLUDED PDF - only at the outset - but there may be several DRAFT EBUNDLE PDFs sent.
If you plan ahead and make contact with the other side in good time, the process of agreeing what should be in the Bundle will hopefully run smoothly, but if the other side, despite reminders, fail to tell you which documents they wish to see included you may be faced with a dilemma. You do not want to wait forever and risk not allowing yourself sufficient time to produce and deliver copies of the final eBundle (and any hardcopies) on time but, on the other hand, you do not want to be criticised by the tribunal, later on, for showing insufficient flexibility.
If you end up in the situation where the other side do not tell you what evidential documents they wish to see included, you may have to proceed with what you have. You should write to the other side explaining what you are doing and why - e.g.
On [date] I wrote to you proposing timescales for the process of producing the eBundle, and we agreed that by [date] you would tell me what [further] documents you wished to be included. But you have not done so despite my following up on [date] and [date] and, given the shortness of time, I must now proceed to finalise which documents will be in the eBundle. I have added every document referred to in your statement of case and the statements of your witnesses plus other documents. That is the best I can do in the circumstances. Please see the final draft index attached to this email. The full final draft eBundle can be downloaded using this link...
Once you get to this point - where you are having to make less than ideal choices because of the other side's failure to engage - you should, before generating the final draft eBundle, create a further section in eBrief Ready (if you have not already done so) named Selected Correspondence re Bundle Production and load to it a copy of your initial communication (in which you first proposed a timetable) and a copy of your follow up communications showing the steps leading up to the point where you had to make less than ideal decisions and beyond. If there are a lot of communications relating to eBundle production you don't necessarily need to include them all but you should include sufficient to demonstrate that you gave the other side ample opportunity to co-operate, that they failed to "play ball", and that your eventual decision to proceed to finalise the eBundle was reasonable. To complete the picture you should include copies of the orders/directions given by the tribunal relating to eBundle production (if they are not already included elsewhere).
Once the complete set of documents to be included in the eBundle has been identified before the deadline, or if you get to the deadline and the other side have, despite reminders, not confirmed what documents they want to be included (so you have to proceed with what you have) then it is time to produce a draft eBundle with fixed final page numbers.
Decide which sections will be in which hardcopy volumes
The first thing to do is, thinking ahead, decide which sections will be in which hardcopy volumes. You could make the decision about allocation to volumes when sending out an earlier draft if you wished but because the decision partly depends on how many pages of documents there are in each section it is usual to wait until this stage, when all documents to be included have been identified, and then decide exactly how the eBundle will be arranged.
Sometimes it makes sense to arrange the position of documents in the eBundle with half an eye to making the eventual production of the hardcopy easier. For example if there are many documents which will need to be printed on A3 paper in landscape they could be grouped together in a separate section so that when the time comes they can be printed easily and perhaps placed in a suitable binder as a separate volume. Arranging documents for ease of producing the eventual hardcopy must not be done at the expense of making the position of documents in the bundle illogical or unhelpful but arranging A3 documents together often makes sense anyway. For example maps are often landscape A3 and the purpose of maps is to show features of land which are unlikely to be subject to frequent change. So the exact month that a map happened to be published is less important than the general timeframe and consequently it is usually more helpful if historical maps are collected together in a section by themselves, arranged chronologically within that section, rather than being included amongst the bulk of other documents. But the tail must not wag the dog and there may be some particular A3 documents which really need to be placed in chronological position among the bulk of documents which will be printed on A4.
It is normal to have the sections containing statements in a different volume from the sections containing the documents the statements refer to, so that both can be open at the same time. Subject to this requirement, consecutive sections are allocated to hardcopy volumes with the following principles in mind:
a volume can contain more than one section but sections do not normally span volumes (unless this is unavoidable due to the size of the section).
each volume binder should not contain so many pages that it is difficult to handle - generally no more than 300 sheets - this is 600 pages if the intention is to print double-sided and generally double-sided printing is best to save weight and space (except perhaps for A3 landscape pages).
eBrief Ready desktop shows how many pages there are in each section.
Most tribunals require at least one "official" hardcopy to be produced by the party producing the eBundle for the use of witnesses when giving evidence at the final hearing, and may require further official hardcopies to be produced by that party for the use of the judge, any other tribunal members, and the other side. Some tribunals require these hardcopies to be printed double-sided, some require single-sided printing, but usually it is left to the party producing the official hardcopies to decide.
Anyone printing an additional hardcopy for their own use will want to arrange their hardcopy to match the "official" hardcopies so that, for example, if a witness at the final hearing is referred to volume 2, the user can also look in their own volume 2 knowing that it contains the same page range, hence the need to indicate in the printing instructions which sections should be assembled in which hardcopy volumes. Even if there are no "official" hardcopies at all it is still useful to have a recommended allocation of sections to hardcopy volumes so that if two or more people are printing their own hardcopy for their own use they can both use the same suggested volume arrangement. And it is also, of course, necessary to follow the correct allocation to volumes so as to ensure that there is a volume index at the start of each volume.
If colour coding is used it makes it easy for everyone at the hearing who is using a hardcopy to be able to immediately tell, if someone else picks up a volume to refer to, which volume they are looking in. When choosing colours try to avoid using colours which will be used by any other type of bundle there may be - for example authorities bundles often have green covers so don't use green. You may also want to consider whether, when you later come to produce the hardcopies, you will be using D-ring bunders or comb-binding as D-ring binders may not be available in all colours whereas comb-binding uses card covers which are available in any colour.
When you have decided which sections should go in which hardcopy volumes, amend the descriptions of each section to indicate the volume like this:
Section A - Statements of Case (Vol 1 blue)
Section B - Applicant's Witness Statements (Vol 1 blue)
etc.
It is usual to identify volumes with a number, and sections with a letter, to avoid confusion.
Then create a draft bundle so that the final page numbering can be seen
Send out
Rename the bundle PDF to FINAL DRAFT BUNDLE and send it to the other side by whatever file transfer system has been agreed and invite them to confirm that references are correct:-
I have created the final draft of the eBundle with final fixed page numbers and an index showing which documents are the exhibits referred to in statements so that you can double-check that the documents referred to in your statements are correctly identified. Those documents which will, in the eventual hardcopy, need to be printed on A3 are also indicated. I would propose to send to you the final eBundle with target page numbers imprinted in the right hand margin next to exhibit references in statements by [date]. [Some of the documents referred to in your statements do not identify the document referred to by exhibit mark: in these cases can you let me know by [date] what the page number of the referred-to document is so that this can be added to the margin.]
Add printing instructions
While you are waiting for any comments from the other side you can add printing instructions to the Bundle Intro Document. You should have already loaded a single-page bundle Intro document so you are not now adding any new pages - just adding to what is on an existing single page - so that page numbering is not disturbed. The amended bundle intro document should be reloaded ready for generating the final bundle.
Add a Title Page
Once the other side have confirmed that document references are correct, or, at least, have not pointed out any error, the next step is to add the title page. By default eBrief Ready generates a basic title page (which would have been included in the draft bundles you previously sent out) so adding a title page does not alter pagination. The cover of a volume of a hardcopy conventionally is a page containing the name and number of the case in the top half of the page and, below that, in tramlines, the title of the bundle and date of the hearing it will be used in. The function of the cover of a hardcopy volume is (like the cover of a book), to enable the volume to be easily identified if, for example, if it is on a table with many other volumes. Such considerations do not apply to the eBundle PDF itself (it is identified by filename) but the eBundle nevertheless needs to have a Title Page as the first page in the PDF matching the cover of the hardcopy (although, unless the hardcopy is a single volume, it will not be quite an exact match because each volume of the hardcopy will have the volume number in large type included in its Title Page).
Type up the Title Page for the eBundle as a single-page Word document with the name and number of the case and, below that, the title - e.g. FINAL HEARING BUNDLE for hearing 28 January 2025 - within tramlines.
Load, the title page Word document to eBrief Ready.
Add page references
Then add to the right hand margin of each statement the page numbers of exhibited documents. This will help hardcopy users in particular. There are two ways of doing this: (1) you can use an annotate function or (2) you can add the page numbers by hand. Most people find it easier and quicker to add page numbers by hand but you can use either method. The two methods are further explained here.
Name the eBundle PDF
The PDF should then be renamed to a suitable filename. The particular court or other tribunal may have rules about the filename to be used for eBundles which are to be sent to it. In the absence of any specific rule, if you will be sending the eBundle to the tribunal as an email attachment then it should be renamed to a filename which starts with the name of the party submitting it, and includes the word eBundle, the name of the case, the number of the case, and the date of the hearing at which it will be used.
Smith - eBundle - Smith v Jones REF-2023-1234 hearing 11 Oct 2024.pdf
Some tribunals have a document upload system. If you will be providing the eBundle to the tribunal using a document upload system which requires the case number to be entered in a field on the upload screen, it is usually unnecessary to include the case name and number in the filename as well.
eBundle - hearing 11 Oct 2024.pdf
Finally send out copies of the Final Hearing Bundle to the tribunal and to the other side.
This information page is designed to be used by clients of John Antell who have entered into a written agreement for the provision of legal services.
Any explanation about naming conventions or other matters in the context of legal 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. Also, even as an overview, the information will not be applicable to every case as procedures vary between different courts and other tribunals and any tribunal may give alternative procedural directions in an individual case. So please do not rely on the above but contact me for advice.
Any information about specific computer techniques is provided for information purposes only and you should satisfy yourself, before using any techniques, software or services mentioned, that the techniques are appropriate for your purposes and that the software or service is reliable.
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the information in this page 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.
This page was lasted updated in April 2025 Disclaimer