Small Claims Track - Bundle Query

[Andy Thomas]

I am claimant in a case. I have been asked by court to submit my
Witness Statement: which I have prepared with copies of correspondence
and a transcript of a telephone conversation as appendices.
The Notice of Allocation states (as well as when to submit Witness
Statement):
"No later than 7 days before the final hearing the Claimant shall file
at court 2 copies of the trial bundle. It must be indexed and
paginated."
I have indexed and page numbered my Witness Statement appendices (5 of
them).
What do I need to submit as the "trial bundle": just further copies
of the Witness Statement plus the appendices: I have no more
information to submit as a "bundle"?

[Paul Rudin]

One of the ideas behind the Civil Procedure Rules is apparently that
they're supposed to be usable by non-lawyers (although I'm not so sure
about this).

Anyway - you might find reading Practice Direction 39A helpful, in
particular the bit about bundles.

<http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39/pd_part39a#IDAMLWKC>

Your subject line says small claims track, but I'm not sure there's
requirement for proper bundles on the small claims track?

27.2 suggests otherwise in that all of 39 (except the bit about public
hearings) doesn't apply to small claims.

<http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.2>

Not sure if any of this is of any practical help :/

[Ian Jackson]

In article <dnkth9p7ogrhdq4eq...@4ax.com>,

Andy Thomas <andyth...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>What do I need to submit as the "trial bundle": just further copies
>of the Witness Statement plus the appendices: I have no more
>information to submit as a "bundle"?

Disclaimer: although I have made numerous county court claims, I have
never had one go to a hearing; I did bring an Information Tribunal
appeal but in that case my opponents (the ICO) prepared the bundle.
So I don't have direct personal experience of your situation.
However:

The "bundle" is a single agglomoration of all the documents for the
hearing.

Of course I don't know your case so I don't know what those are, but
they would probably include, as you mention
- your witness statement
- telephone conversation transcript
- copies of correspondence you think is relevant to make your case
(as you mention)
(which you have probably already listed in your own Allocation
Questionnaire) but it should probably also include
- your Particulars Of Claim (that might be a copy of the claim form
or it might be a separate document)
- your opponents' Defence
- documents that your opponents are intending to rely on
(your opponents' Allocation Questionnaire will list these)

(The Notice of Allocation as you quote it seems to expect you as the
Claimant to prepare one bundle for the documents from both sides. As
someone representing themselves the judge will probably make
allowances for mistakes, but you can probably make things go more
smoothly, and more favourably impress the judge, if you get things
mostly right.)

The bundle should have continuous page numbering through the whole
bundle, so that in the hearing you can say "please turn to p43 of
bundle, were you will see the telephone conversation transcript from
the 3rd of November" or whatever.

And the bundle should have a table of contents (this is what the court
means by an "index" I think) listing which documents are in it and
what bundle page numbers they are on.

I probably wouldn't think of the transcript and correspondence copies
as "appendices" to the witness statement. They're probably documents
in their own right which should stand by themselves in the bundle.

You probably want to punch a pair of holes in each copy of the bundle
and bind it with treasury tags.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Ian Jackson]

In article <87wqg03...@rudin.co.uk>,

Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>Anyway - you might find reading Practice Direction 39A helpful, in
>particular the bit about bundles.
>
><http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part39/pd_part39a#IDAMLWKC>

Oh, well spotted.

>Your subject line says small claims track, but I'm not sure there's
>requirement for proper bundles on the small claims track?
>
>27.2 suggests otherwise in that all of 39 (except the bit about public
>hearings) doesn't apply to small claims.

Oh, yes. The actual rule which requires the trial bundle to be
prepared by the claimant is 39.5.

But presumably 27.2 doesn't prevent the court using its case
management powers to direct that the claimant should prepare a bundle
anyway. And it doesn't sound like the OP doing so is likely to be
particularly difficult.

I would recommend to the OP that they follow the guidance in the
practice direction 39A, to which Paul has helpfully provided a link.

[Paul Rudin]

ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:


> But presumably 27.2 doesn't prevent the court using its case
> management powers to direct that the claimant should prepare a bundle
> anyway. And it doesn't sound like the OP doing so is likely to be
> particularly difficult.

Indeed, the court retains the power to make other orders. But it appears
that the usual thing in small claims is to make "standard directions" as
per Appendix B of PD 27.

<http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27/pd_part27#B>

[Ian Jackson]

In article <8761nk3...@rudin.co.uk>,

Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed, the court retains the power to make other orders. But it appears
>that the usual thing in small claims is to make "standard directions" as
>per Appendix B of PD 27.
>
><http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27/pd_part27#B>

Hmm. I wonder whether the judge in the OP's case has deliberately
diverged from those, in asking the OP to prepare a bundle ?

[Andy Thomas]

Thanks - also to Ian.

I had not realised that I would be asked to produce a bundle: hence my
putting other documents as appendices to my Witness Statement.
I have now removed appendices from Witness Statement, so that it is
now just that.
All other documents I am preparing in to a paginated/indexed bundle.

Once again, thanks to both of you: appreciated.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Andy Thomas" wrote in message
> news:3vl2i954mli85cv5c...@4ax.com...

>
>
> I had not realised that I would be asked to produce a bundle: hence my
> putting other documents as appendices to my Witness Statement.
> I have now removed appendices from Witness Statement, so that it is
> now just that.
> All other documents I am preparing in to a paginated/indexed bundle.

No, that can't be right, In order to introduce documents into evidence you
still have to exhibit them to your witness statement. The trial bundle is
just a collation of both sides' evidence. You can't use it to put new
documents in that are not otherwise before the court.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2014-03-13, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Andy Thomas" wrote in message
>> news:3vl2i954mli85cv5c...@4ax.com...
>> I had not realised that I would be asked to produce a bundle: hence my
>> putting other documents as appendices to my Witness Statement.
>> I have now removed appendices from Witness Statement, so that it is
>> now just that.
>> All other documents I am preparing in to a paginated/indexed bundle.
>
> No, that can't be right, In order to introduce documents into evidence you
> still have to exhibit them to your witness statement. The trial bundle is
> just a collation of both sides' evidence. You can't use it to put new
> documents in that are not otherwise before the court.

It hardly sounds right either that when the court says "witness
statement" they actually mean "all documents you might intend to use
as evidence".

According to CPR27.4(3)(a)(i) the court is supposed to give: "a
direction that each party shall, at least 14 days before the date
fixed for the final hearing, file and serve on every other party
copies of all documents (including any expert’s report) on which he
intends to rely at the hearing". It doesn't say anything about
witness statements as a separate thing to that.

[Andy Thomas]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:25:21 +0000, "Chris R"
<inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> "Andy Thomas" wrote in message
>> news:3vl2i954mli85cv5c...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> I had not realised that I would be asked to produce a bundle: hence my
>> putting other documents as appendices to my Witness Statement.
>> I have now removed appendices from Witness Statement, so that it is
>> now just that.
>> All other documents I am preparing in to a paginated/indexed bundle.
>
>No, that can't be right, In order to introduce documents into evidence you
>still have to exhibit them to your witness statement. The trial bundle is
>just a collation of both sides' evidence. You can't use it to put new
>documents in that are not otherwise before the court.

Thanks.
So any thing which the court has not see before are added to my
witness statement. I have a transcript of a phone call, letters to
and from third parties; letters/email to from the defendant.
I assume that once they are submitted as part of my Witness Statement
- then they will become part of the bundle (actually as part of the
Witness Statement which the bundle contains). Is that correct?.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <p8a3i9d9d69drtuaj...@4ax.com>,

Andy Thomas <andyth...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>Thanks.
>So any thing which the court has not see before are added to my
>witness statement. I have a transcript of a phone call, letters to
>and from third parties; letters/email to from the defendant.
>I assume that once they are submitted as part of my Witness Statement
>- then they will become part of the bundle (actually as part of the
>Witness Statement which the bundle contains). Is that correct?.

I disagree with Chris R on this point. Your witness statement would
naturally say something like "and on date xyz I had a phone call with
them" of course. I wouldn't regard the transcripts, copies of
letters, etc. as part of the witness statement. But in practice I
don't think any of this disagreement matters.

Chris and I agree that all of these other documents should be in the
bundle.

I think that each of these other documents should be mentioned
separately in the table of contents for the bundle, so that they can
be easily found (rather than all being subsumed into a single entry
"witness statement"). I doubt Chris would disagree.

All that remains, as a disagreement, is exactly what title you write
at the front of each document and exactly what words you use to
describe them in the bundle table of contents.

If you get something like this wrong it isn't going to matter at all.
Small Claims Track hearings are informal and the usual rules of
evidence don't apply. Certainly the judge isn't going to punish you
for getting your terminology wrong (which is what this amounts to).

(I'm assuming that you'll go to the hearing, so that if the judge has
any doubts about the authenticity or origin of any of the documents,
they can ask you about it.

If you don't plan to go to the hearing then you might want to be sure
that your witness statement asserts that each of the documents is what
they appear to be, to avoid your opponents complaining to the judge
that you haven't formally stated that they're authentic.

I think this consideration is probably what Chris is referring to. I
think in a Small Claims Track hearing it's theoretical.)

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:54:40 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote...

> I disagree with Chris R on this point. Your witness statement would
> naturally say something like "and on date xyz I had a phone call with
> them" of course. I wouldn't regard the transcripts, copies of
> letters, etc. as part of the witness statement.

Your witness statement would say: "...and on date xyz I had a phone call
with them. Exhibit A is a transcript of that phone call."

Otherwise there is nothing in the evidence to prove what the transcript
is. It might have a heading at the top saying "Transcript of phone call
between Fred Bloggs and Joe Soap dated xyz", but that doesn't verify the
truth of it. The witness statement does that.

However, you may well be right that in the small claims track technical
issues like this would probably be sorted out at the hearing.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Ian Jackson]

In article <MPG.2d8c5ee2d...@text.usenet.plus.net>,

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:54:40 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote...
>>I disagree with Chris R on this point. Your witness statement would
>>naturally say something like "and on date xyz I had a phone call with
>>them" of course. I wouldn't regard the transcripts, copies of
>>letters, etc. as part of the witness statement.
>
>Your witness statement would say: "...and on date xyz I had a phone call
>with them. Exhibit A is a transcript of that phone call."

Right.

>Otherwise there is nothing in the evidence to prove what the transcript
>is. It might have a heading at the top saying "Transcript of phone call
>between Fred Bloggs and Joe Soap dated xyz", but that doesn't verify the
>truth of it. The witness statement does that.
>
>However, you may well be right that in the small claims track technical
>issues like this would probably be sorted out at the hearing.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at.

Thanks.

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:54:32 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote...

>
> In article <MPG.2d8c5ee2d...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >However, you may well be right that in the small claims track technical
> >issues like this would probably be sorted out at the hearing.
>
> Yes, that's what I'm getting at.

It would still be better to get it right in the first place, so as not
to have to sort it out at the hearing. Which is presumably what the OP
wants to do.

I can't offer anything specific to court proceedings, but proceedings in
the Intellectual Property Office are modelled on court proceedings in a
number of respects. Maybe the OP would find some useful hints in their
guide to unrepresented litigants in patent disputes, though you'd need
to ignore stuff that's specific to patent cases.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/decidingpatentdisputes.pdf (1.56MB)

See Chapter 3 - Evidence. Also pages 17 and 18 for samples of a witness
statement and a signature sheet for an exhibit referred to in the
witness statement.

Note the following as to why copies of letters, transcripts and other
documents need to be presented as exhibits to a witness statement:

===[quote]==================

3.6 Evidence is usually given in the form of written
statements, known as 'witness statements', about
the facts by individual people. A document such as
the invoice mentioned in Example 1 in paragraph 3.1
cannot be put in as evidence on its own because it
needs a statement from someone to explain what the
document is supposed to be. The invoice would be
put in as an 'exhibit' to the statement.

Example: The witness statement might say: "On 8
January I bought a widget to construct a prototype of
my invention. I attach as exhibit 1 the invoice for the
purchase of that widget."

===[end quote]==============


This doesn't really go into how to present bundles as used in court
hearings, since in the IPO hearing officers and the parties tend to keep
their papers in order themselves. However, it does tell you about the
form that the evidence would take.

At least in IPO proceedings, the originals of all the evidence (witness
statement and their exhibits) would have been filed some time before
preparations are made for the hearing. I would have thought that any
bundles would be copies of those orginals, presented in a logical order
e.g. in a ring binder, with consecutive page numbers added to all pages,
a contents page and possibly tabbed dividers if it's a large file. The
logical order for an exhibit would be after the witness statement that
introduces it, and to which it might be attached.