The documentation horror show

I deal with a couple of issues in this light-hearted article but they come with a health warning. I do not dispute that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Family Procedure Rules (FPR) are set out as they are for a reason and should be complied with however, in many instances they are considered in a one-size fits-all approach.

Yet in many cases they don't, or they could unnecessarily increase costs. The place to air views, so that you do not fall foul of the judiciary, is at local court user meetings where you may be given certain flexibility. Local practice directions are of course prohibited.

Doubling work

First, court staff are an increasingly rare commodity and they have far too much to do, in far too short a time scale. They do not 'own' files as you do in your practices and are liable to do the work more than once if you fax and email the same document. You may feel there is too much to lose and that you have to ensure your file arrives safely. All you do is cause that limited time to be wasted by making work that will be done two or three times for example, by a member of staff trying to find a file that has been actioned already, or even worse sending a file to a district judge more than once.

The moral is: file in time with the hearing date clearly endorsed. Do that and you cannot be criticised by the judge. Also, please lose those fancy cardboard corners, and stapling in more than one place: they hamper filing and it takes time to remove them.

The CPR and FPR make it quite clear when, where, and how electronic communications can be used. Do look them up and read them. Letters that come in endorsed 'also sent by email and fax' show an ignorance and total disregard for the rules. My court used to award a wooden spoon at court user meetings to the worst offenders with a request that a cheque was sent to a local charity. This policy soon improved matters.

Bundle hate

Second - bundles. I personally hate them, except for at final hearings, as all the papers I need are in the court file, unless there is something which would not be - for example, a schedule of costs for a costs claim against the opponent based upon their behaviour.

My judicial colleagues and
I have a relaxed attitude to bundles as they seem to be a huge cost burden on the profession for no real benefit. We tell our practitioners to use common sense. If you insist on filing the bundle, look at the rules carefully to see what should be included and don't overlook the word 'relevant'. It is there for a
reason. SJ

District Judge Ayers sits at Bedford County Court