Court Bundle

This morning I received a draft bundle from my wifes solicitor in advance of our (2nd) Final FDR in 8 days time.

The court previously ordered that the >1000 page bundle be reduced to a maximum of 500 pages.

This morning I received an 1100 page bundle. The new bundle does not include my S25 sttement which with evidence is 140 pages. Nor does it include my final narrative statement, or either of those on behalf of my wife. It is also lacking my latest disclosure which I have submitted recently to them.

I queried the bundle size, which taking all of the new documents into account, will surely exceed 1500 pages. I reminded them of the court order for its limitation.

The response received was that this draft represents the final bundle and they will be seeking permission of the court to exceed the ordered 500 pages. I immediately forwarded their response to the court, and requested that the court note my objection to any extension over the 500 pages previously ordered.

This really is not a complex case. Our estate, at the start of this "festival" was possibly worth £700,000. It is now likely around £500,000, largely due to legal expenses, the housing market decline, and being unable to maintain employment due to stress.

Is there anything I can do? All they want to do is pad the bundle out, subject me to hours of cross examination, bully me, and presumably hope I will lose my temper (which I will not do under any circumstances).

Does a final narrative statement need to be included in the court bundle?

Am I correct that this is different to an S25 Statement?

>>The court previously ordered that the >1000 page bundle be reduced to a maximum of 500 pages.

It rather depends when the court ordered this. If it was at the hearing immediately before the forthcoming hearing then you have a point. On the other hand if it was some time much earlier in the proceedings perhaps it has been superseded by later events.

However, if it was the former then the court will have imposed this limit for a reason - presumably to keep the case within bounds. If that is the case you need to write to your wife's solicitors, keeping a copy to show the court, saying that the court imposed a 500 page limit for a reason and that if they intend more than doubling that amount you object, that you will draw your objection to the attention of the court and that you regard it as litigation misconduct for which you will claim costs.

Thank you.

It was ordered at the most recent hearing.

I will therefore draft and submit a letter as you mention.

>>It was ordered at the most recent hearing.<<

Then the court will have had a reason for making that direction and what your wife's solicitors are doing seems to be a flagrant disregard of that direction. You are right to object in the strongest terms and to make your objection known to your wife's solicitor and the court. Courts don't like having their directions ignored.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>It was ordered at the most recent hearing.<<
>
> Then the court will have had a reason for making
> that direction and what your wife's solicitors are
> doing seems to be a flagrant disregard of that
> direction. You are right to object in the
> strongest terms and to make your objection known
> to your wife's solicitor and the court. Courts
> don't like having their directions ignored.


I emailed the court, advising that I would like to object to any application for extension in the size of the court bundle. I also sent a letter via email to her solicitors with wording as you suggested.

Her solicitor has not replied, however the judge replied with this....

"Any applications concerning size of Bundle etc will have to be made formally and on notice."

Does this mean, what I expect, that if they wanted to exceed te 500 page limit set by the court, they would have to apply (formally), clearly BEFORE the hearing (which is in 7 days), and I would be given an opportunity to raise objection before the court approves the request? I think that is what it says.

Which leads me to suspect, that THEY know that, and are doing this to further delay matters, to their own benefit. These are an established law firm. They MUST know procedure.

Also, as the limit has been set at 500 pages, assuming this is not permitted to be exceeded, would it be fair to assume this amounts to 250 pages selected by each party? Generally, are current disclosure, S25 Statements, evidence, and final narrative statements included in the page count?

Furthermore, the reason why I think they are delaying, may be partially to make more money, but it would be difficult to think a professional long standing, professional law firm would need to do that. What I really think they are doin is playing the long game for maintenance. My wife and I have both been severely effected by this whole process, mentally. We are both on medication. However, while I spend my time trying to improve, get better, and get back to work so I can help our children who are both at uni, she continues to sit (at home) on benefits. i actually did take a job 3 weeks ago, which I have not told them about yet. I lasted 2 weeks and was terminated...I am simply not able to focus on my work, due to the stress and anxiety of this ongoing process. So I suspect they are trying to prolong things, to see if i get back to work, and give them an opportunity to claim spousal maintenance. This seems the only logic behind their actions. And I'm guessing, you will likely confirm, there is nothing I can do about it? I want and need to get myself better, eventually.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2023 10:36AM by spartacus.

>>Does this mean, what I expect, that if they wanted to exceed te 500 page limit set by the court, they would have to apply (formally), clearly BEFORE the hearing (which is in 7 days), and I would be given an opportunity to raise objection before the court approves the request? I think that is what it says. <<

That is what it means, yes. Mind you, the words, 'they would have to apply' means more accurately, 'they should apply'. If they don't apply and leave it to the actual hearing to make the application then you would object at that time and draw the court's attention to the previous directions. I expect a court would take a dim view of it. However, if they do this you (and the court) would face the dilemma of whether it was better to go ahead with the bigger bundle or whether the hearing should be adjourned to a later date to enable them to prepare a bundle of whatever size the court allowed. If it was adjourned it would be at their cost.

Are previous court orders required to remain witin the court bundle? The bundle was ordered to be reduced in size to 500 pages. It is currently 545 + over 100 pages each for S25 statements .

But, given this divorce has been ongoing for three years, there are court orders in the bundle that really don't need to be there as far as I can tell. I would have expected our narrative statements and financial disclosure dating back 12 months, unless there is something untoward to be all that is required to be included.

I would expect (unless there is someting untoward) that those items form sufficent detail for a judge to make a decision.

This 545 page bundle...at least half is court orders.

I am sure, it has been. mentioned on here that a new sitting judge should not be made aware of the opinions or rulings of a previous judge?

With that in mind, is it right for previous court orders to be included in the bundle?

As well as objecting to the includsion of my sons statemenr and evidence (another recent thread for anyone not aware), I am writting to my wifes solicitor, with copy for the court records, and suggesting removal of previous court orders, which would largely reduce the bundle to the required limits.

I would like to state, in my letter, that the judge should not be directed by previous orders, if it is in deed true,

thanks,

>>is it right for previous court orders to be included in the bundle?

All court orders which relate to the case MUST be included in the bundle. If no agreement was reached at the FDR the court will have made directions. Those directions are not without prejudice and they never refer to anything which is without prejudice.