Tweet
I have a couple of questions concerning preparing my case. I have just been to a pre-trial review, and am due to prepare the Bundle soon. The other side have objected that I intend to include three documents which were not declared during the Disclosure procedure three years ago. In fact they were generally included under the heading of other correspondence, but because they were not relevant at the time, they were not separately identified.
Subsequently - months later - the Defence made new allegations which were not included in their defence, which I therefore needed to rebut. I produced an email from their client in support of my rebuttal. They are now saying that I cannot include it in the Bundle because it was not specifically identified at Disclosure. However, as I have said, at that time it was not relevant.
In essence, their client sent me a letter (confirmation of contract) enclosing about 7 important attachments. Their solicitor denies that one of the documents was attached, despite the fact that the actual document is listed in the original letter as an attachment. Following this denial, I remembered that I had scanned the letter and the contents on receipt, so that I could store them on my computer as I always do. My Brother scanner automatically records a copy of every document that I scan, and numbers and dates it. I therefore looked in the Brother records, and of course found the scanned letter in question with the scanned copies of all the attachments, including the one in dispute. The record has all my scanned documents in date and number order going back to 2014 at least. I sent a copy of the Brother record to prove what had been sent to me, but the solicitor is now saying that I should have declared the the Record at the time of disclosure, when I did not even know that this would be disputed. The solicitor has not asked his client what was included by way of attachments, but I have no doubt that if he did, the client would be straightforward and acknowledge that the disputed document was of course attached.
The trial window has now today been set by the Court for 7th June. Is it too late therefore really to include the SCAN record (which includes an image of this letter and attachments) in my Bundle as their solicitor is insisting ? I could, if necessary, make an application to the Court, but it seems unnecessary and expensive. So what are the rules about this ? The copy of the scan record was sent to the solicitor at least six months ago.
Secondly, during correspondence over the last three years, there have been several other letters from my very large files which I have sent to the solicitor in my correspondence, which he also says that I should have disclosed originally. As far as I am concerned, I did disclose all of them under the heading of "other correspondence", but there was no way I was going to attempt to list each and every one of them - probably more than 1,000 pieces of paper. The solicitor never asked to inspect anything, and he certainly has been aware of each of these letters, documents and emails last September as I produced an electronic "Bundle" of everything I intended to include in the paper Bundle when it is eventually prepared. This was actually done for briefing an expert witness and copied to the solicitor. It seems a little unfair that I should not be allowed to produce them therefore now. I did not appreciate the significance of them three years ago, and frankly did not even remember what they contained because there were so many other documents. But there is no doubt the solicitor has had them since last September as they were sent by email.
The pre-trial review has just resulted in an Order which expressly says "For the avoidance of doubt, the trial bundle must contain only those documents which have already been disclosed." I would understand from the wording that it means that anything that has been sent to the solicitor in the last three years would count as having "already been disclosed". I fully understand that the bundle should not include anything that is disclosed new from this date (without permission of the Court).
So I would be very grateful if anyone could tell me whether I can include documents sent to the solicitor since Disclosure three years ago, or whether it is too late to include any documents from exchange of emails with the solicitor during the last three years. It is only as I have developed my case that I have even discovered them.
I do remember being present at a trial in the Royal Courts of Justice about ten years ago, when the judge started a folder in Court which he called the "X File", into which he added a number of newly disclosed documents as evidence, and which he allowed to be on the record. I distinctly remember it because it caused a laugh when he called it the "X File" for obvious reasons. So I am actually a little puzzled by the stance now being taken by the other side's solicitor in this case - although obviously the rules may have changed in the last ten years.
Subsequently - months later - the Defence made new allegations which were not included in their defence, which I therefore needed to rebut. I produced an email from their client in support of my rebuttal. They are now saying that I cannot include it in the Bundle because it was not specifically identified at Disclosure. However, as I have said, at that time it was not relevant.
In essence, their client sent me a letter (confirmation of contract) enclosing about 7 important attachments. Their solicitor denies that one of the documents was attached, despite the fact that the actual document is listed in the original letter as an attachment. Following this denial, I remembered that I had scanned the letter and the contents on receipt, so that I could store them on my computer as I always do. My Brother scanner automatically records a copy of every document that I scan, and numbers and dates it. I therefore looked in the Brother records, and of course found the scanned letter in question with the scanned copies of all the attachments, including the one in dispute. The record has all my scanned documents in date and number order going back to 2014 at least. I sent a copy of the Brother record to prove what had been sent to me, but the solicitor is now saying that I should have declared the the Record at the time of disclosure, when I did not even know that this would be disputed. The solicitor has not asked his client what was included by way of attachments, but I have no doubt that if he did, the client would be straightforward and acknowledge that the disputed document was of course attached.
The trial window has now today been set by the Court for 7th June. Is it too late therefore really to include the SCAN record (which includes an image of this letter and attachments) in my Bundle as their solicitor is insisting ? I could, if necessary, make an application to the Court, but it seems unnecessary and expensive. So what are the rules about this ? The copy of the scan record was sent to the solicitor at least six months ago.
Secondly, during correspondence over the last three years, there have been several other letters from my very large files which I have sent to the solicitor in my correspondence, which he also says that I should have disclosed originally. As far as I am concerned, I did disclose all of them under the heading of "other correspondence", but there was no way I was going to attempt to list each and every one of them - probably more than 1,000 pieces of paper. The solicitor never asked to inspect anything, and he certainly has been aware of each of these letters, documents and emails last September as I produced an electronic "Bundle" of everything I intended to include in the paper Bundle when it is eventually prepared. This was actually done for briefing an expert witness and copied to the solicitor. It seems a little unfair that I should not be allowed to produce them therefore now. I did not appreciate the significance of them three years ago, and frankly did not even remember what they contained because there were so many other documents. But there is no doubt the solicitor has had them since last September as they were sent by email.
The pre-trial review has just resulted in an Order which expressly says "For the avoidance of doubt, the trial bundle must contain only those documents which have already been disclosed." I would understand from the wording that it means that anything that has been sent to the solicitor in the last three years would count as having "already been disclosed". I fully understand that the bundle should not include anything that is disclosed new from this date (without permission of the Court).
So I would be very grateful if anyone could tell me whether I can include documents sent to the solicitor since Disclosure three years ago, or whether it is too late to include any documents from exchange of emails with the solicitor during the last three years. It is only as I have developed my case that I have even discovered them.
I do remember being present at a trial in the Royal Courts of Justice about ten years ago, when the judge started a folder in Court which he called the "X File", into which he added a number of newly disclosed documents as evidence, and which he allowed to be on the record. I distinctly remember it because it caused a laugh when he called it the "X File" for obvious reasons. So I am actually a little puzzled by the stance now being taken by the other side's solicitor in this case - although obviously the rules may have changed in the last ten years.
Comment