What Is a UK Legal Bundle? The Definitive Guide to Court Bundle Preparation

Last updated: March 2026

Bundle preparation: For technical requirements across all proceeding types, see our UK Court Bundle Compliance Guide (2025-2026).

Quick Answer

A UK legal bundle is an organised collection of documents for a court hearing, in the format required by the relevant practice direction. Family Court bundles follow Practice Direction 27A under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (in force 2 March 2026). Civil bundles follow Civil Procedure Rules Part 39 and PD 32. Tribunal bundles follow each tribunal's own practice direction. Every bundle must be paginated, indexed, and bookmarked with OCR. Over 250,000 family court applications are made annually.

---

Whether you are dealing with family law matters, child arrangements orders, divorce and financial remedy, SEND tribunal appeals, employment tribunal claims, or immigration proceedings, the principle remains the same: courts expect documents presented in an organised, paginated, and indexed format that enables efficient judicial review.

Why Bundles Matter More Than You Might Think

If you're heading to court—whether for a financial dispute, a child arrangements matter, or a property claim—you've probably heard that you need to prepare a "bundle." What you might not have heard is just how important getting it right really is.

"A good bundle cannot win a bad case, but a bad bundle can damage a good case."

— Paul Waterworth, Retired District Judge The Law Society Gazette, "A well-prepared bundle of joy", 15 October 2002

This statement, made over two decades ago, remains the defining principle of court bundle preparation. It's worth reading twice. A well-organised bundle helps the judge understand your case quickly and clearly. A poorly prepared bundle frustrates the court, wastes time, and—most critically—can undermine even the strongest legal arguments.

The unfortunate reality? Despite years of judicial criticism, bundle preparation standards remain inconsistent. Courts continue to receive oversized, disorganised, and non-compliant bundles that waste precious judicial time. But here's the encouraging part: with the right approach and tools, preparing a compliant bundle is entirely achievable—even if you're representing yourself.

---

What Exactly Is a Court Bundle?

Think of a court bundle as the complete story of your legal matter, organised for efficient judicial review. It's a paginated, indexed collection of documents that presents everything a judge needs to understand and decide your case.

When a judge picks up your bundle, they should be able to:

• Find any document within seconds using the index
• Understand the chronology of events
• Locate the key evidence supporting each party's position
• Navigate between related documents easily

A bundle is not simply a pile of photocopied documents shoved into a ring binder. It is a carefully curated, logically ordered presentation of your case. The index acts as a roadmap, the pagination provides a universal reference system, and the sectional structure ensures that applications, evidence, and correspondence are separated for clarity.

What a Bundle Typically Contains

The exact contents vary depending on your type of case. A divorce and financial remedy bundle will focus heavily on Form E financial statements, property valuations, and pension reports. A child arrangements bundle will prioritise CAFCASS reports, safeguarding letters, and welfare evidence. An employment tribunal bundle will centre on contracts, grievance correspondence, and witness statements. But the organising principle remains constant across all jurisdictions: include what's relevant, exclude what isn't, and organise everything logically.

---

Why Courts Require Bundles

Courts require bundles for several interconnected reasons, all of which serve the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately.

Judicial Efficiency

Judges typically have limited pre-reading time before a hearing. A judge preparing for a one-day final hearing might have two to three hours of reading time allocated. If your bundle is disorganised, those hours are spent searching for documents rather than understanding your case. A well-structured bundle means the judge arrives at the hearing already familiar with the key issues.

Equality of Arms

When both parties and the judge are working from identically paginated bundles, everyone is literally on the same page. When the judge says "turn to page 147," all parties can immediately find the same document. This creates fairness and prevents one side gaining an advantage through better document organisation.

Record Keeping

The bundle becomes the official record of the hearing. Appeals, enforcement applications, and future proceedings all refer back to the bundle. If pages are misnumbered or documents are missing, the record is compromised.

Cost Management

Court time is extraordinarily expensive. When a hearing overruns because the judge cannot find documents, everyone pays—the parties, the court service, and ultimately the taxpayer. Properly prepared bundles reduce hearing times and associated costs.

---

What Goes in a Court Bundle? A Detailed Breakdown

Understanding what belongs in your bundle—and equally, what does not—is essential to getting it right. Here is a more detailed breakdown of each section.

The exact section scheme depends on the type of proceedings. For Family proceedings other than financial remedy (private law children, public law children, Family Law Act applications, adoption), PD27A Ch 7.3 sets out sections A–I, with D onwards contingent on the case having that content:

• Section A — Preliminary documents and case management documents
• Section B — Applications and orders (sealed or approved)
• Section C — Statements and affidavits (dated, no exhibits)
• Section D — Care plans (where applicable)
• Section E — Experts' and other reports (including children's guardian reports)
• Section F — Relevant medical records
• Section G — Relevant police disclosure
• Section H — In public law proceedings at Case Management Hearings: the child's birth certificate or equivalent
• Section I — Other relevant documents arranged by appropriate divisions

For financial remedy proceedings only, PD27A Ch 6.3 uses a different and shorter section list tailored to Form E disclosure and consent order material. Employment, immigration, SEND and civil proceedings have their own separate rules under their own practice directions — always check the rule that applies to your case.

What to Leave Out

Equally important is knowing what to exclude:

• Duplicate documents (include each document only once)
• Correspondence that merely arranges meetings or confirms receipt
• Documents not referred to in any statement or submission
• Superseded drafts when a final version exists
• Documents from previous, unrelated proceedings (unless specifically relevant)

---

How to Paginate a Court Bundle

Pagination is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of bundle preparation, yet it is fundamental to a compliant bundle.

The Basic Rule

PD27A uses two distinct numbering schemes depending on the type of Family proceedings. For proceedings other than financial remedy, Chapter 7.2 requires Bates numbering — the section letter followed by a number starting at 1 in each section, so the bundle reads A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3 …. The numbers never continue across sections: section B always restarts at B1, not at the next number after the last page of section A. This is defined verbatim at PD27A para 1.2: "Bates numbering: sections denoted by letters (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc.)".

For financial remedy proceedings only, Chapter 6.2 requires Arabic numbering running consecutively through the whole bundle (1, 2, 3 … 347), matched to the PDF page labels.

Where to Place Page Numbers

Page numbers should appear in a consistent position on every page — typically at the bottom centre or bottom right. They must be clearly legible and printed in a font size that is easy to read (at least 10pt).

Adding Documents at Subsequent Hearings

One practical strength of Bates numbering is that new documents filed for a later hearing are added to the end of the relevant section and numbered next in that section's sequence (so if section C ended at C7 at the first hearing and two new statements are filed, they become C8 and C9). The rest of the bundle's numbering is undisturbed — you don't have to re-paginate every page downstream (PD27A para 7.16).

Re-Pagination

One of the most time-consuming aspects of manual bundle preparation is re-pagination. Every time you add or remove a document, every subsequent page number changes. This is where bundle preparation software provides enormous value—automatic pagination that updates instantly when the bundle contents change.

---

Electronic Bundles vs Paper Bundles

The shift towards electronic bundles accelerated significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic and has become permanent in most courts. Understanding the requirements for both formats is important.

Electronic Bundle Requirements

Since 2020, most courts have moved to electronic bundles as the default format. Practice Direction 27A and the judiciary's guidance on electronic bundles specify the following requirements:

Advantages of Electronic Bundles

Electronic bundles offer significant advantages over paper:

• Searchability: Judges can search for specific terms across the entire bundle
• Navigation: Hyperlinked indexes and bookmarks allow instant document access
• Portability: No heavy files to transport to court
• Accessibility: Text-to-speech and zoom features assist judges with visual impairments
• Environmental: Eliminates thousands of printed pages per case

When Paper Bundles Are Still Required

Some courts and some hearing types still require paper bundles. Always check your specific directions order. When paper bundles are required:

• Print single-sided on A4 paper
• Use ring binders or lever arch files
• Tab each section clearly
• Ensure all pages are legible and correctly oriented
• Provide the number of copies specified in the directions order (typically three: one for the judge, one for each party)

The Hybrid Approach

Many courts now operate a hybrid system where electronic bundles are the primary format but paper copies of key documents may be requested for the hearing. BundleCreator generates both electronic and print-ready formats from the same bundle, ensuring consistency between versions.

---

How to Create a Court Bundle: Step by Step

Whether you are a solicitor, barrister, or litigant in person, the process for creating a compliant court bundle follows the same essential steps.

Step 1: Review Your Directions Order

Before you start assembling documents, carefully read the court's directions order. It will specify:

• What documents must be included
• The deadline for filing the bundle
• Who is responsible for preparing the bundle (usually the applicant)
• Any specific formatting requirements
• The maximum page count

Step 2: Gather All Relevant Documents

Collect every document that may be relevant to the hearing. It is better to gather too many documents initially and then curate down, rather than discover missing documents the day before filing.

Step 3: Organise Documents into Sections

Follow the structure required by the relevant practice direction. For Family proceedings other than financial remedy, PD27A Ch 7.3 sets out sections A–I (with D onwards contingent on content): A (preliminary and case management), B (applications and orders), C (statements and affidavits, no exhibits), D (care plans), E (experts' and other reports), F (medical records), G (police disclosure), H (child's birth certificate in public law Case Management Hearings), I (other relevant documents by appropriate divisions). Financial remedy proceedings use a separate, shorter section list under Ch 6.3.

Step 4: Remove Duplicates and Irrelevant Material

This is where discipline matters. Ask yourself: "Will the judge need to refer to this document during the hearing?" If the answer is no, it probably does not belong in the bundle.

Step 5: Paginate

Use the numbering scheme required by the practice direction that applies to your proceedings. For Family proceedings other than financial remedy, PD27A Ch 7.2 requires Bates numbering (A1, A2, B1, B2 …, with numbers restarting at 1 in each section). For financial remedy only, PD27A Ch 6.2 requires Arabic numbering running consecutively through the whole bundle (1, 2, 3 …). If you are using software like BundleCreator, the correct scheme is applied automatically. If you are doing it manually, double-check every label.

Step 6: Create the Index

Your index should list every document with:

• Document description
• Date of document
• Bates label (Ch 7) or page number (Ch 6) where the document starts

Step 7: Add Navigation (Electronic Bundles)

For electronic bundles, add:

• Hyperlinks from the index to each document
• PDF bookmarks for each section and document
• OCR text layer if any documents are scanned images

Step 8: Quality Check

Before filing, verify:

• All page numbers are correct and consecutive
• The index references match actual page numbers
• All documents are legible and correctly oriented
• The bundle does not exceed the page limit
• Electronic bundle features (links, bookmarks, OCR) are working

Step 9: File and Serve

File the bundle with the court and serve copies on all other parties by the deadline specified in the directions order. Retain proof of filing and service.

---

Common Bundle Preparation Mistakes

Understanding what goes wrong helps you avoid the same pitfalls. These are the most common mistakes we see, drawing on years of judicial criticism and practical experience.

Mistake 1: Exceeding Page Limits

The Problem: PD27A sets a 350-page limit. Many bundles exceed this without court permission, inviting judicial criticism before your case is even heard.

The Fix: Be ruthless about relevance. Every document must earn its place. If you genuinely need more than 350 pages, apply to the court for permission in advance and explain why.

Mistake 2: Inconsistent Pagination

The Problem: Documents paginated separately, creating confusion when pages are referenced. "See page A3" means nothing if everyone's copy shows a different label for that document.

The Fix: Paginate in the scheme required by the practice direction that governs your proceedings — Bates A1, A2, B1 … for Family proceedings other than financial remedy; Arabic 1, 2, 3 … for financial remedy — and make sure the PDF page labels match the index exactly. BundleCreator handles this automatically.

Mistake 3: Missing or Inaccurate Index

The Problem: No index at all, or index page numbers that do not match actual pagination. The judge cannot find anything without manually searching the entire bundle.

The Fix: Generate the index after pagination is finalised. Better still, use software that keeps the index synchronised with page numbers automatically.

Mistake 4: Duplicate Documents

The Problem: The same document included multiple times, wasting pages and confusing the court. This is Lord Justice Sedley's Sixth Law in action.

The Fix: Review your bundle for duplicates before filing. Include each document once, in the most logical section.

Mistake 5: Documents in Wrong Sections

The Problem: Expert reports filed under correspondence, orders mixed with statements. The judge expects a particular structure and cannot find documents where they should be.

The Fix: Follow the structure prescribed by the relevant practice direction. Use templates that guide correct document placement.

Mistake 6: Non-Searchable Scanned Documents

The Problem: Scanned documents without OCR text, making electronic bundles impossible to search. A judge trying to find a specific paragraph in a 100-page report must scroll through every page.

The Fix: Apply OCR to all scanned documents before including them in the bundle.

Mistake 7: Missing Bookmarks and Hyperlinks

The Problem: Electronic PDFs without navigation features, requiring manual scrolling through hundreds of pages.

The Fix: Add PDF bookmarks for every section and document. Hyperlink the index entries to their corresponding pages.

Mistake 8: Filing Late

The Problem: Bundles filed after the deadline, leaving the judge insufficient reading time. This is both a contempt of the court's directions and a practical problem—an unprepared judge cannot conduct an effective hearing.

The Fix: Work backwards from the filing deadline. Allow at least a week for bundle preparation, quality checking, and any last-minute additions.

---

Practice Direction 27A: The Key Requirements

Practice Direction 27A governs bundle preparation for family proceedings in England and Wales. If that sounds dry and bureaucratic, consider what courts looked like before standardised rules existed.

Imagine a judge receiving five different bundles from five different firms, each organised differently, paginated differently, and structured according to each firm's preferences. Now imagine trying to conduct a hearing when nobody can find the same document at the same time.

Practice directions exist because courts simply cannot function efficiently without standardised document presentation.

Key PD27A Requirements

Practice Directions Beyond Family Law

Whilst PD27A governs family proceedings, other areas of law have their own bundle requirements:

• Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) govern bundles for civil claims, including property disputes and personal injury
• Employment Tribunal Rules set out requirements for employment hearing bundles
• Immigration Tribunal Rules specify bundle formats for immigration appeals
• SEND Tribunal has its own requirements for special educational needs appeals

For a detailed comparison across all jurisdictions, see our guide to how Practice Directions differ across UK legal arenas.

The Benefits of Compliance

When everyone follows the same format:

• Judges can prepare for hearings systematically
• Court time isn't wasted navigating unfamiliar structures
• References in judgments and submissions are universally understood
• Appeals can be conducted from the same document set
• Your case is taken seriously from the outset

Compliance isn't about ticking boxes—it's about presenting your case in the most effective way possible.

---

What Happens When Bundle Preparation Goes Wrong

The consequences of poor bundle preparation aren't theoretical. Courts regularly waste significant time dealing with non-compliant bundles, and judges have become increasingly vocal—sometimes dramatically so—in their criticism.

A 1,200-Page Bundle: What Not to Do

In January 2025, Mr Recorder O'Grady at Nottingham Family Court publicly criticised a 1,200-page bundle submitted for care proceedings involving a six-month-old child. The practice direction limit? 350 pages.

The judge identified multiple failures that transformed what should have been a focused hearing into an exercise in frustration:

• Unnecessary historical proceedings included without relevance to the current matter
• Approximately 200 pages of police disclosure that should have been excluded under the rules
• Random organisation mixing statements, applications, and orders without logical structure

O'Grady stated: "When judges are left to divine what the issues are in a case or must wade through voluminous documents...precious court time is wasted."

He emphasised the systemic impact: when "at least three IRHs" (Issues Resolution Hearings) are scheduled daily, one disorganised bundle doesn't just affect one case—it undermines justice across multiple proceedings. Other families wait longer. Other cases get less attention. The ripple effects extend far beyond the parties who submitted the problematic bundle.

---

Twenty-Five Years of Judicial Warnings

The judiciary has been criticising bundle preparation failures for decades. Their words should serve as both warning and guidance—and, perhaps, motivation to get things right.

Lord Justice Jackson: Bundles Should Help, Not Hinder

In Iliffe & Anor v Feltham Construction Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 715, Lord Justice Jackson captured the essence of good bundle preparation in a single sentence:

"The appeal bundle should be an aid to the court, not an obstacle course."

If you remember nothing else about bundles, remember this. Every document you include should help the judge understand your case—not create additional hurdles.

Sir James Munby: "Enough Is Enough"

Sir James Munby, when he was President of the Family Division, delivered perhaps the most comprehensive—and exasperated—judicial criticism of bundle failures. His judgments should be required reading for anyone preparing court bundles.

In Re L (A Child) [2015] EWFC 15, Munby expressed his frustration at persistent non-compliance with remarkable directness:

"As long ago as 2008, in Re X and Y (Bundles) [2008] EWHC 2058 (Fam), over eight years after the promulgation of the original bundles Practice Direction in March 2000, I expressed myself in strong terms. I said that: '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.'"

Seven years later, had things improved? Not according to Munby:

"My experience, shared by far too many of my brethren, is that in this respect, as indeed in too many other respects, PD27A is frequently, indeed in some places routinely, ignored."

He identified specific problems that continue to plague bundles today:

"I recently tried a care case where a psychologist's report ran to some 150 pages. In the present case the bundle includes no fewer than 131 pages of witness statements by the mother. Another problem is created by unnecessary repetition, for example where the second witness statement reproduces all or most of the first before proceeding to add the more recent material, or where much of the detail in a lengthy assessment is reproduced, sometimes almost word for word, by the assessor in a subsequent witness statement."

His warning to practitioners was stark:

"This endemic failure of the professions to comply with PD27A must end, and it must end now. Fifteen years of default are enough. From now on: (i) Defaulters can have no complaint if they are exposed, and they should expect to be exposed, to public condemnation in judgments in which they are named. (ii) Defaulters may find themselves exposed to financial penalties..."

Mr Justice Holman: "Take It All Away"

In Seagrove v Sullivan [2014] EWHC 4110 (Fam), Mr Justice Holman confronted bundle excess head-on—and his response was remarkable:

"Despite numerous attempts to rein it in, the scale, intensity and cost of family financial litigation remains often out of control and completely disproportionate to the issues at stake. This case seems to me to be a particularly obvious example, and I propose, therefore, to take a firm and robust line."

What had the court received?

"There were delivered to the court yesterday, or the day before, five large lever arch bundles of documents, which comprise over 2,000 pages, inclusive of the respective skeleton arguments, which are each just under 25 pages. There were also delivered to the court two large bundles and one more slender bundle containing no less than 32 authorities."

His response was dramatic:

"Except for the two skeleton arguments and the chronology, every single piece of paper that has so far been lodged will be taken away from this courtroom now. All the bundles of authorities will be taken away from this courtroom now."

"I say 300, for I am excluding and retaining the two existing skeleton arguments, which, as I have said, extend to about 50 pages. There must be only one bundle of not more than five authorities."

He concluded with a warning to the profession that applies equally to anyone preparing bundles:

"There is no more room at all for courts being resigned or fatalistic when the sort of thing that has happened in this case happens again."

Mr Justice Mostyn: A Culture Change Is Needed

In J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam), Mr Justice Mostyn addressed similar failures with equal frankness:

"The parties prepared for the final hearing on 1 October 2014. For that hearing they agreed and produced no fewer than 8 trial bundles, containing over 2,000 pages."

He was scathing about the underlying attitude:

"I do not know for whom compliance with PD27A para 5.1 would be 'disproportionate'. Certainly not for the court and, in view of the waste caused by the deployment of so many files, not for the parties. Ultimately I think that what this language meant was that it would be just too much bother for busy barristers and solicitors to have to sit down and actually work out what were the relevant documents to be inserted into a single bundle."

His conclusion:

"This is no better than the old regime which the new prescription was designed to stamp out... There should only be one single bundle unless prior permission to use more than one has been obtained. The failure by both sides to comply with PD27A for the hearing on 1 October was very wrong."

"It must never happen again. If this requires a culture change in the way practices are run then so be it."

Beyond Family Courts: The Same Problems Everywhere

Bundle failures aren't confined to family courts. In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2259 (Admin), Mr Justice Holgate addressed the problem in the Planning Court:

"I regret the need to have to make some observations on the inappropriate manner in which the claim was put before the court... this claim was accompanied by six volumes comprising over 2,000 pages of largely irrelevant material. The Claimant's skeleton argument was long, diffuse and often confused. It also lacked proper cross-referencing to those pages in the bundles which were being relied upon."

The contrast between what was lodged and what was actually needed tells its own story:

"The skeleton gave little help to the court. Shortly before the hearing the court ordered the production of a core bundle for the hearing not exceeding 250 pages. During the hearing, it was necessary to refer to only 5 or 6 pages outside that core bundle."

Six volumes and 2,000 pages, reduced to 250 pages plus five or six additional references. That's the difference between what practitioners thought was necessary and what actually mattered.

The Cost of Non-Compliance

In Serra v Harvey [2024] EWHC 2250 (KB), Deputy High Court Judge Obi addressed the practical consequences in terms that should give everyone pause:

"There needs to be a hands-on approach by all parties with regards to compliance with court orders."

"Preparing trial bundles is not difficult but it does require organisation and planning."

On wasted costs orders:

"It seems to me that there is a public interest in costs, which have been wasted as a result of a solicitor's conduct in proceedings being visited on the solicitors in the form of a Wasted Costs order, for two main reasons. First, it sends a clear message that the Court expects orders to be complied with... Secondly, and importantly it relieves the cost burden on the solicitors' client who would, if no costs order were made, potentially need to make a negligence claim against their solicitors."

---

Sedley's Laws of Documents: Humour That Hurts

Lord Justice Sedley's famous "Laws of Documents" captures the frustration of judges dealing with poorly prepared bundles. Though satirical, each "law" describes real problems that courts encounter daily. If you've prepared bundles before—or received them—you'll recognise every single one.

First Law: Documents may be assembled in any order, provided it is not chronological, numerical or alphabetical.

Second Law: Documents shall in no circumstances be paginated continuously.

Third Law: No two copies of any bundle shall have the same pagination.

Fourth Law: Every document shall carry at least 3 numbers in different places.

Fifth Law: Any important documents shall be omitted.

Sixth Law: At least 10 per cent of the documents shall appear more than once in the bundle.

Seventh Law: As many photocopies as practicable shall be illegible, truncated or cropped.

Eighth Law: At least 80 per cent of the documents shall be irrelevant. Counsel shall refer in Court to no more than 10 per cent of the documents, but these may include as many irrelevant ones as counsel or solicitor deems appropriate.

Ninth Law: Only one side of any double-sided document shall be reproduced.

Tenth Law: Transcriptions of manuscript documents shall bear as little relation as reasonably practicable to the original.

Eleventh Law: Documents shall be held together, in the absolute discretion of the solicitor assembling them, by: a steel pin sharp enough to injure the reader; a staple too short to penetrate the full thickness of the bundle; tape binding so stitched that the bundle cannot be fully opened; or a ring or arch-binder, so damaged that the two arches do not meet.

It's funny because it's true. And because it's true, it shouldn't keep happening.

---

The Real Costs of Getting It Wrong

Financial Consequences

Consequences for Your Case

Beyond the financial impact, poor bundles can result in:

• Adjournments: Cases delayed whilst bundles are corrected—adding months to already lengthy proceedings
• Adverse inferences: Courts may assume you're hiding something if documents are missing or disorganised
• Credibility damage: Judges question the organisation of parties who can't present documents properly
• Unfavourable cost orders: You pay for wasted court time
• Professional consequences: Solicitors risk wasted costs orders and regulatory complaints

---

The Cost of Professional Bundle Preparation

One question we hear frequently is: "How much does it cost to have a solicitor prepare my bundle?" The answer often surprises people—and not in a good way.

Solicitor Bundle Preparation Costs

According to the Law Society's 2024 survey of solicitor charging rates, hourly rates for family law solicitors typically range from £200 to £350 per hour outside London, and £300 to £500+ per hour in London.

Bundle preparation is time-intensive work. Gathering documents, organising them correctly, paginating, indexing, and ensuring PD27A alignment takes considerable effort—even for experienced practitioners.

For complex cases—those involving multiple properties, business interests, or extensive correspondence—bundle preparation can easily exceed 15 hours, pushing costs above £4,000.

"The cost of preparing court bundles can be a significant burden for clients, particularly in cases where legal fees are already substantial. Many clients are surprised to learn how much time—and therefore money—goes into document preparation." — Resolution (Family Law Professionals)

The Alternative: DIY Preparation with Professional Review

Here's where the numbers become interesting. Consider a different approach:

1. You prepare the bundle using BundleCreator's templates and automated compliance features
2. A solicitor reviews your work rather than doing it from scratch
3. You save 70-80% of the cost whilst still having professional oversight

"Clients who come to us with pre-prepared bundles using professional software significantly reduce their legal costs. We can review and refine a well-organised bundle in a fraction of the time it takes to build one from scratch." — Family law solicitor, Stowe Family Law

Why This Approach Works

The expensive part of bundle preparation isn't legal expertise—it's the administrative work of gathering, formatting, and organising documents. That's precisely what BundleCreator automates.

What you actually need a solicitor for:

• Strategic document selection: Advising what to include and exclude
• Legal accuracy checking: Ensuring statements and chronologies are correct
• Final review: Confirming PD27A alignment and professional presentation

By handling the administrative heavy lifting yourself, you free your solicitor to focus on the parts that genuinely require legal training—at a fraction of the overall cost.

For Litigants in Person: Even Greater Savings

If you're representing yourself, the equation is even more compelling. Without BundleCreator, you face:

• Hours learning PD27A requirements
• Manual pagination (and re-pagination when you add documents)
• Creating indexes by hand
• Uncertainty about whether you've got it right

BundleCreator handles all of this automatically. For the cost of a monthly subscription, you get:

• Professional templates used by solicitors
• Formatting designed to meet court requirements
• Guidance on what goes where
• A bundle that reads cleanly to the judge

"The access to justice gap is real. Many litigants in person struggle not because their case lacks merit, but because they can't navigate the procedural requirements. Tools that simplify compliance help level the playing field." — LawWorks (Solicitors Pro Bono Group)

---

What BundleCreator Does

BundleCreator.co is purpose-built software for creating court-ready legal bundles. It was designed by legal professionals who understand the frustrations of bundle preparation and built specifically to solve the problems that judges have been criticising for over two decades.

Pre-Loaded Bundle Templates

Instead of starting from a blank page and hoping you've remembered all the requirements, BundleCreator provides professionally structured templates for every type of proceeding:

Each template follows the relevant practice direction structure automatically. You don't need to memorise formatting rules or wonder whether you've got the sections in the right order—it's all done for you.

Automatic Formatting Features

Government Forms Already Included

Stop searching government websites for the correct court forms. BundleCreator includes:

• Form E (Financial Statement)
• Form A (Notice of Application)
• Form C100 (Child Arrangements Application)
• Form C1A (Allegations of Harm)
• Form C79 (Enforcement Application)
• Form D81 (Statement of Information for Consent Order)
• Form ES1/ES2 (Financial Statement Summary)

All forms are automatically positioned in the correct bundle section and properly paginated. No more hunting for PDFs or wondering which version is current.

Security for Sensitive Documents

Court bundles contain highly sensitive information—financial records, medical reports, children's details. You can't simply email these documents around or upload them to consumer file-sharing services.

BundleCreator provides:

• Enterprise-grade encryption at rest and in transit
• Password-protected sharing with secure links
• Access controls determining who can view or edit
• Audit trails showing who accessed what and when
• UK data storage complying with GDPR requirements

Your documents stay protected throughout the entire process.

Pricing

BundleCreator offers flexible plans designed for every type of user—from litigants in person preparing a single bundle to law firms managing dozens of cases. Visit our pricing page to find the right plan for your needs. We also offer pay-as-you-go options for one-off bundle preparation.

---

Who Benefits from BundleCreator?

Legal Professionals

Solicitors and barristers use BundleCreator to:

• Prepare bundles in a fraction of the time
• Eliminate formatting errors and non-compliance
• Share working bundles with counsel securely
• Update bundles without re-paginating manually
• Maintain consistent quality across all cases

Litigants in Person

Self-representing litigants face particular challenges. You're already dealing with the stress of court proceedings, and you must learn bundle requirements whilst managing your entire case. That's an enormous ask.

BundleCreator helps by:

• Providing clear templates showing exactly what's needed
• Handling technical compliance automatically
• Offering guidance within each template section
• Enabling professional-quality bundles without legal training
• Reducing the intimidation of court document preparation

You shouldn't be disadvantaged simply because you can't afford legal representation. A well-prepared bundle levels the playing field.

McKenzie Friends and Support Workers

Those assisting litigants can use BundleCreator to:

• Help organise documents into proper structure
• Ensure bundles meet court requirements
• Create professional presentations that support cases
• Share bundles securely with courts and other parties

---

Your Bundle Preparation Checklist

Use this checklist to ensure your bundle is court-ready:

Before Starting

• Identify correct bundle template for hearing type
• Check court directions for specific requirements
• Gather all relevant documents
• Request any outstanding documents (pension valuations, reports)

Document Assembly

• Applications and responses included
• All court orders included (chronological)
• Witness statements included
• Expert reports included
• Essential correspondence included
• Supporting evidence included
• No duplicates present
• No irrelevant documents included

Formatting Compliance

• Correct pagination scheme for your proceedings (Bates A1, A2, B1, B2 … for Family proceedings other than financial remedy; Arabic 1, 2, 3 … for financial remedy)
• Clear, accurate index
• All documents A4 portrait
• All text legible
• OCR applied to scanned documents
• Total pages within limit (or permission obtained)

Electronic Bundle Requirements

• Single PDF document
• Index hyperlinked to documents
• Bookmarks for each section
• File size within limits
• Password protection applied (if sharing sensitively)

Filing

• Bundle filed by deadline
• All parties served with copies
• Confirmation of receipt obtained

---

Don't Let Your Bundle Damage Your Case

Every judge quoted in this article shares a common frustration: practitioners continue to submit bundles that waste court time and undermine the administration of justice. The rules haven't changed. The expectations are clear. The technology to comply now exists.

BundleCreator.co provides:

• Pre-loaded templates matching every proceeding type
• Case templates with correct structure built in
• Government forms already positioned correctly
• Automatic pagination and indexing
• Electronic filing compliance
• Secure sharing and storage
• Guidance for litigants in person

Whether you're a solicitor preparing multiple bundles each week or a litigant in person facing your first court hearing, BundleCreator ensures your bundle helps your case rather than hinders it.

Remember Paul Waterworth's words: a bad bundle can damage a good case. Don't let bundle preparation be the thing that undermines your position.

Create your first bundle today →

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a legal bundle in the UK?

A legal bundle is an organised collection of documents compiled for court proceedings. It contains applications, statements, evidence, orders, and correspondence that a judge needs to decide your case. Bundles must follow the relevant Practice Direction requirements — for Family proceedings, this is Practice Direction 27A, which sets a maximum of 350 pages, requires a detailed index and proper formatting, and specifies Bates numbering (A1, A2, B1, B2 …) for proceedings other than financial remedy or Arabic numbering for financial remedy only. Different courts have different requirements: family law bundles follow PD27A, whilst employment and immigration tribunals have their own rules. For a detailed comparison, see our PD27A alignment guide.

How many pages should a court bundle be?

Practice Direction 27A limits family court bundles to 350 pages unless the court grants permission for additional pages. This limit exists because judges have limited reading time and bundles should contain only documents that are likely to be referred to at the hearing. In practice, a well-curated bundle for a standard hearing should be significantly shorter than 350 pages. If you find yourself approaching the limit, critically review whether every document is genuinely necessary.

What is the purpose of a bundle in court?

The purpose is to present all relevant documents in a structured, navigable format so the judge can efficiently review the case. A well-prepared bundle enables the judge to find any document within seconds, understand the chronology of events, and focus on the substance of the case rather than searching through paperwork. Bundles also create a common reference point—when the judge says "turn to page 85," everyone can find the same document immediately.

How do you paginate a court bundle?

For Family proceedings other than financial remedy, PD27A Chapter 7.2 requires Bates numbering — each section has a letter and documents within the section are labelled A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3 …, with numbers restarting at 1 in each new section. For financial remedy only, Chapter 6.2 requires Arabic numbering running consecutively through the whole bundle (1, 2, 3 …) and matched to the PDF page labels. Labels should appear in the same position on every page (typically bottom centre or bottom right) in a clear, legible font, and the index must reference them exactly. Outside Family proceedings, follow the pagination rule in the practice direction or procedure rules that govern your jurisdiction.

Can I prepare my own court bundle without a solicitor?

Yes. Many litigants in person successfully prepare their own court bundles. The key is following Practice Direction requirements carefully. Tools like BundleCreator are specifically designed to help self-represented parties create court-ready bundles without legal training. The software provides templates, automatic pagination, and guidance on document placement—handling the technical requirements so you can focus on your case.

What is the difference between an electronic bundle and a paper bundle?

An electronic bundle is a single PDF document with hyperlinked index, bookmarks, and searchable text (OCR). A paper bundle is a physical set of documents in ring binders or lever arch files. Since 2020, most courts prefer electronic bundles as the default format. Electronic bundles offer advantages including searchability, instant navigation via bookmarks, and portability. However, some courts and hearing types still require paper copies—always check your directions order. BundleCreator generates both formats from the same bundle.

What happens if my bundle doesn't comply with Practice Direction 27A?

Non-compliant bundles can result in serious consequences: the bundle being rejected by the court, hearings being adjourned (with associated costs falling on the defaulting party), public criticism from the judge (as seen in numerous reported cases), wasted costs orders, and significant delays to your case. In the worst cases, judges have ordered entire bundles removed from the courtroom and replaced with compliant versions at the parties' expense. The courts have made clear that non-compliance will no longer be tolerated.

---

This guide provides general information about court bundle preparation in England and Wales. It is not legal advice. For advice specific to your circumstances, consult a qualified solicitor.

Sources:

• Practice Direction 27A - Family Proceedings: Court Bundles
• UK Government Family Court Statistics Quarterly
• The Law Society Gazette - Judge Laments Court Time Wasted by 1,200 Page Bundle
• The Law Society Gazette - A Well-Prepared Bundle of Joy (2002)
• BAILII - Re L (A Child) [2015] EWFC 15
• BAILII - J v J [2014] EWHC 3654 (Fam)
• BAILII - Seagrove v Sullivan [2014] EWHC 4110 (Fam)
• BAILII - Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v SSEEFRA [2017] EWHC 2259 (Admin)
• BAILII - Serra v Harvey [2024] EWHC 2250 (KB)