Judge criticises bundle that exceeded 1,200 pages in care proceedings case

In W (A Child), Re (Finalisation at IRH) [2025] EWFC 266 (B) (18 August 2025), Mr Recorder O'Grady warned: “When judges are left to divine what the issues are in a case or must wade through voluminous documents that have been unnecessarily included within puzzlingly organised bundles – which, but for being in electronic format might consist of 4 or 5 lever arch files – precious Court time is wasted.

“When that happens in one case it is significantly more difficult to promote the interests of justice in all cases.”

The judgment was made at an Issues Resolution Hearing on 14 August, in a case concerning W, a 6-month-old child.

Introducing the case, Recorder O'Grady noted that in February 2025, Nottingham City Council applied for a Care Order and an Interim Care Order, following which the court sanctioned W's separation from her parents with placement into foster care.

W has remained in the same foster care placement since she was removed from the mother’s care.

W is not the parents' first child. She has two siblings: T and J. In 2022, both siblings were made subjects of Care Orders and Placement Orders. Both siblings have since been made subjects of Adoption Orders.

The judge noted: “It is not contentious that: (A) T was cared for by the paternal grandmother during those proceedings.....; (B) the paternal grandmother was assessed as being unable to meet T's long-term needs; and (C) the paternal grandmother did not challenge that conclusion in those proceedings.”

In the present case involving W, the local authority contended that assessment of the paternal grandmother was not necessary, nor was there any other reason necessitating the adjournment of the proceedings. It pressed the making of a Care Order and a Placement Order.

However, the mother sought the proceedings to be adjourned so that: (A) the paternal grandmother could be assessed; and (B) so that she could file evidence and so that her right to a fair hearing could be fulfilled.

Mr Recorder O'Grady concluded it was “not in the interests of justice” to adjourn the proceedings for the purposes proposed by the mother, or for purposes separately proposed by the father.

He said: “I conclude that W's welfare requires I dispense with parental consent to the making of a Placement Order. I am satisfied Local Authority's plan is in W's best interests.”

Lastly, the judge noted that a court bundle that exceeded 1,200 pages had been filed in the case.

He observed that "the bundle:

1. included contact records (notwithstanding Practice Direction 27A expressly excluding those records and the Court's order requiring they only be served);
2. included nearly 200 pages of police disclosure (notwithstanding Practice Direction 27A excluding those records);
3. included swathes of previous proceedings (which were unnecessary and appear to have been included without satisfactory forensic thought being given to their inclusion);
4. exceeded the 350 page limit without permission; and
5. had documents inserted seemingly randomly. For example, the bundle began with a threshold document. Then the original application. Then a social work statement. Then there were some C2 applications and some orders. Then an old case summary. Then some more orders. Then some NHS documents. Then some police disclosure. Then social work records. Then further C2 applications. Then more witness statements. Then more contact records. Then further C2 applications. Then some assessments. Then a care plan. Then more contact records. Then an expert report."

The judge warned: “I regret this has not been an isolated example and I have shared these experiences with the Designated Family Judge for Nottinghamshire.”

He pointed to the words of Mr Recorder Chandler KC in T v T and Others (Disregard for Procedural Rules, Adjournment) [2025] EWFC 14(B), which were as follows:

"1. The family court is used to dealing with cases that have not been prepared properly: bundles that are too large, exclude important documents or contain irrelevant ones; witness statements full of invective and opinion; position statements which are too long and unfocused. The failure to comply with rules, practice directions and guidance, adds significantly to the burdens upon the court in terms of the time it takes to read into a case, concentrate on the key issues and avoid getting drawn down false alleys. The lack of an agreed trial template often leads to unrealistic expectations in terms of the preparation of a judgment, causing cases to go part-heard.

2. In Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177 at [50] Sir James Munby P described "…a deeply rooted culture in the family courts which, however long established, will no longer be tolerated… the slapdash, lackadaisical and on occasions almost contumelious attitude which still far too frequently characterises the response to orders".

3. In Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 at [3], Mr Justice Mostyn condemned the husband's "…utter disregard for the relevant guidance, procedure, and indeed orders [as] totally unacceptable", and commented that, despite the warnings contained in judgments such as Re W, "…nothing seems to change".

4. Too often, lay parties who have waited months for a final hearing, come to court and face the unedifying spectacle of a judge struggling to make sense of a badly prepared case, taking up valuable court time by teasing out issues and arguments which should have been clearly articulated in advance. In many cases, to their credit, family judges manage to keep calm, carry on and roll up their sleeves, hacking through the papers to reach a judgment, even where this involves hours of additional work, which might otherwise have been avoided by an earlier focus on the issues.

5. But even in the family court, there comes a limit.

6. And that limit has been grossly exceeded in this case, which has come before this court for a listed 3-day hearing in such a disordered and chaotic state that it is simply impossible to proceed in a fair way."

He said: “I respectfully agree with everything said by Mr Recorder Chandler KC. It applies with equal, if not greater force to the conduct of public law proceedings. Being able to properly prepare for the IRH is essential to making the hearing effective. It is even more crucial when the Court has (usually) at least three IRHs listed in a day.”

While acknowledging the “heavy workloads of those locally undertaking essential work in this important area of family law”, Mr Recorder O'Grady concluded by warning that when judges must “wade through voluminous documents” that have been unnecessarily included within bundles, “precious court time is wasted”.

He said: “When that happens in one case it is significantly more difficult to promote the interests of justice in all cases.”

Lottie Winson