X and Y, Re Bundles

X and Y, Re Bundles

Persistent and significant non-compliance with the Practice Direction on court bundles is unacceptable and justifies judicial sanctions, including costs, adjournment, removal from the list, and, after fair warning, public identification of defaulting practitioners.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: X; Respondent: Y
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Judgment on Procedural Compliance
Outcome
Adjournment due to procedural non-compliance; warning issued to the profession.
Legal Topics
Court Bundles, Practice Directions, Case Management, Sanctions for Non Compliance
Family Law Civil Procedure Court Bundles Practice Directions Case Management Sanctions for Non Compliance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant

Y

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Judgment on Procedural Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether persistent non-compliance with Practice Direction: Court Bundles justifies judicial sanctions
  2. 2 What sanctions are appropriate for late or deficient bundles in family proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Persistent and significant non-compliance with the Practice Direction on court bundles is unacceptable and justifies judicial sanctions, including costs, adjournment, removal from the list, and, after fair warning, public identification of defaulting practitioners.

Court Disposition

Adjournment due to procedural non-compliance; warning issued to the profession.

Orders

  • Case adjourned due to late and deficient bundle.
  • Warning: Future defaulters may be publicly identified in judgments.