The court considered the continuing failure of parties to follow the requirements as to preparation of court bundles, and particularly in urgent applications: ‘This continuing failure by the professions to comply with their obligations is simply unacceptable. Enough is enough. Eight years of default are enough. Eight years are surely long enough for even the most casual practitioner to have learned to do better. ‘ In these days much had been done to improve court efficiency by judges pre-readig the documenmts in a case. That required correctly prepared court bundles. Munby J said: ‘Paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction warns of sanctions penalising those who fail to comply with its requirements. There is the sanction of costs, either orders for costs against the party in default or orders for costs to be paid by the defaulting lawyers. There is the risk that those who default may find their cases put to the end of the list – and I should like to emphasise that the plea ‘but the case will only take 30 minutes, including reading time’ will not necessarily save defaulters from this salutary fate.’
Judges:
Munby J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 2058 (Fam), [2008] Fam Law 999, [2009] CP Rep 5, [2008] 2 FLR 2053, [2009] 1 FCR 468
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re CH (family proceedings: court bundles) FD 2000
. .
Cited – Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Court Bundles) 10-Mar-2000
There should at be lodged with the court a summary of the background to the hearing; a statement of the issue or issues to be determined; a summary of the order or directions sought by each party; a chronology; and skeleton arguments. . .
Cited – Practice Direction: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be Applied in All Courts other than the Family Proceedings Court) FD 2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Litigation Practice
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.272834
