Technical Matter Guide · 32
Law and procedure checked 16 October 2026Family court bundles: responsibility, contents, pagination and filing under PD27A
A court-compliant hearing bundle is a carefully selected, ordered and accessible record for a particular hearing. The party responsible must apply the operative court directions and Practice Direction 27A (PD27A), including who prepares it, what may be included, the appropriate numbering system, electronic format, and the deadlines for filing and service.
The governing framework — and the legal question
PD27A supplements Part 27 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. It governs the preparation and filing of bundles for hearings in the Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court in England and Wales. It applies to first and subsequent hearings, whether the bundle is electronic or paper, and must be read with case-specific directions and any additional applicable Practice Direction, including the public-law and private-law children frameworks and appeal requirements.
The practical question is: what does this judge need to read or be referred to in order to decide the listed issues fairly, and how must those documents be presented? A compliant index cannot repair an incorrect legal scope; equally, relevant evidence is difficult to use where pagination and service are defective.
Who must prepare, file and serve the bundle?
Under PD27A 4.5, the applicant normally prepares, files and serves the bundle; for cross-applications, the party whose application was first in time is ordinarily responsible. This is only the default: a specific court direction takes priority.
Applicant unrepresented; respondent represented
PD27A 4.6 changes the default: ordinarily the legally represented respondent must prepare, file and serve the bundle. Do not simply tell an unrepresented applicant that all bundling is their responsibility.
All parties unrepresented and unable
Only exceptionally, if the court is satisfied that none of the parties can prepare, file and serve the bundle, may it direct HMCTS to assemble one under para 4.7. The court must make that decision; it is not an automatic service.
As far as possible, the responsible party should seek agreement about bundle contents. Agreement about inclusion, however, is not an admission that the facts asserted in a document are correct. For children cases outside public law, PD27A 7.9 also assigns a represented party the lead on specified agreed preliminary documents where the applicant is a litigant in person.
Practical application: unrepresented applicant
Suppose a parent applies for child arrangements without a lawyer, while the other parent has a solicitor. Unless the court directs otherwise, para 4.6 ordinarily makes the represented respondent responsible for assembling, filing and serving the hearing bundle. Both parties still need to identify the documents they say are necessary and cooperate with reasonable, safe arrangements for agreement. A dispute about what must be included is for directions—not unilateral editing of the record.
Relevance, necessity and the danger of over-inclusion
PD27A 5.2 requires only documents relevant to the hearing that the court needs to read or which will actually be referred to. The rule discourages putting whole classes of raw material into bundles by default. It identifies correspondence, email/text/WhatsApp/social-media communications, recordings, financial statements, contact notes, foster-carer logs, some social-services records and photographs as material normally excluded unless the court directs otherwise.
The exception matters. Specific documents from those classes can be included if it is necessary for the court to read them or they will actually be referred to during the hearing. The classification of a WhatsApp message or photo does not, by itself, make the material forbidden. What is impermissible is routine bulk inclusion without a hearing-based justification.
- Which specific finding, welfare issue or direction is this document relevant to?
- Will the judge need to read it, or will someone actually refer to it during the hearing?
- Is it already included elsewhere, superseded, duplicated, confidential or subject to permission/restrictions?
- Are the relevant pages sufficient, preserving context and provenance without misrepresenting the full record?
Worked example — disputed messages
A party holds 180 pages of messages covering two years, but the fact-finding hearing addresses three identified allegations. The sensible starting point is not to insert all 180 pages. Identify the particular exchanges said to bear on the pleaded issues, preserve original/contextual records, consider any competing explanation, and seek agreement or a ruling if inclusion is disputed. Selection must not distort the chronology or conceal exculpatory context.
The chronology can locate events; a statement can identify the disputed proposition; the bundle provides reliable page references for materials properly before the court. The judge determines the facts, not the bundle compiler.
Two bundle regimes: financial remedies and other family proceedings
The revised direction deliberately separates Chapter 6 (financial remedy proceedings) from Chapter 7 (other family proceedings). The same generic PDF template should not be applied indiscriminately. Both regimes require an index and organised sections, but preliminary documents and pagination differ.
| Question | Financial remedies — Chapter 6 | Other family proceedings — Chapter 7 |
|---|---|---|
| Pagination | Consecutive Arabic numbers through the main bundle; preliminary documents separately numbered. In an e-bundle page numbering must match PDF numbering. | Bates numbering with lettered sections and document/page references, for example A1, A2, B1. Section A holds preliminary documents. |
| Core sections | Preliminaries; applications/orders; Forms E, questionnaires and statements; expert/other reports; other necessary documents. | Preliminaries; applications/orders; statements; as relevant, care plans, expert/guardian reports, medical records, police disclosure and other necessary records. |
| Preliminary documents | See 6.6, including ES1, ES2, composite chronology, position statements, reading list and (when applicable) hearing template. | For private-law/non-public-law cases see 7.10; public law has distinct requirements and standard templates under 7.6–7.7. |
| Later hearings | PD27A 6.10 requires a new bundle to be prepared, served and filed for each subsequent hearing. | PD27A 7.16 allows updating/amending for a subsequent hearing, with new documents at the end of relevant sections and superseded documents removed. |
Private-law children: what the preliminary section may require
For proceedings within Chapter 7 other than public law, para 7.10 identifies a current case summary; agreed issues statement; any filed FM5; each party's position statement; any skeleton argument; agreed chronology where appropriate; essential-reading list; and a hearing/witness template for relevant contested, evidential or final hearings. Under para 7.8A, some documents are filed by the bundle preparer while individual parties file their own designated documents. A document's inclusion depends on its applicability and the case directions; not every hearing needs an elaborate narrative or long argument.
A position statement in non-financial proceedings should ordinarily be no longer than three pages unless the court directs otherwise due to complexity (para 7.18). It is not the same as a skeleton argument and should not introduce new evidence or exhibits. Financial remedy position statements follow the different limits set by para 6.12: six pages at first appointment, eight at other interim hearings, twelve at FDR, or fifteen at final hearing, subject to the specified exclusions/conditions.
The electronic bundle must actually work
PD27A Chapter 11 establishes technical requirements for e-bundles. A bundle may be legally relevant yet practically unusable if the index, page labels and bookmarks cannot take the judge to the intended evidence. The ordinary e-bundle limit is 350 A4 pages; exceeding it requires court permission (para 11.2(b)). The separate default paper limit is generally one A4 binder of up to 175 double-sided sheets / 350 sides (para 12.1).
Before filing, verify the index-to-page jump, opening bookmark, first and last page of each section, orientation of landscape material, and whether PDF text searches find the words expected. A screenshot of an email is not converted into reliable primary evidence merely because OCR has rendered its text searchable.
Authorities are separate
Under PD27A Chapter 10, authorities relied on belong in a separate composite authorities bundle, ordinarily capped at ten unless the court specifically directs otherwise. A party relying on an authority must provide a copy or link to an unrepresented party in advance. The ordinary hearing bundle is not a dumping ground for judgments. Cite the proposition and relevant passage rather than lengthy quotation.
Failure mode: the wrong PDF page
An index points to “B15”, but the electronic viewer opens the fifteenth physical PDF page, which contains a different order. The problem can derail oral submissions and make an otherwise clear argument difficult to follow. The cure is not manual renumbering in the margins: rebuild the labels/index/bookmarks according to the correct procedural regime and test them before filing.
Timetable, filing channel and last-minute changes
Subject to specific court directions, PD27A 13.2 prescribes the following timetable for each hearing requiring a bundle:
| When | Required action |
|---|---|
| Seven working days before | Parties must seek to agree the contents of the bundle. |
| Five working days before | The responsible party must file and serve the bundle, save for any preliminary documents not yet available. |
| 11 am, working day before | Outstanding preliminary documents must be served on all parties and filed with the court; a known High Court judge's clerk also receives them by email as prescribed. |
Do not assume that an ordinary calendar-week calculation, an old two-day deadline or informal email to a judge satisfies the rule. Check bank holidays, the hearing venue, the order and the court's permitted filing method. Under PD27A 14.2, use the HMCTS online portal where the facility is made available; otherwise follow the permitted email route and Practice Direction 5B. Large documents may require prior arrangement with the court rather than an unsolicited cloud link.
Give the file a descriptive name containing the hearing date, case reference, abbreviated case name and content description. Preserve a reliable record of exactly what was filed, how, when and to whom it was served. Protect confidential addresses, children's information and restricted family documents.
Paper copies may remain necessary, including where witnesses may give evidence in person or a litigant cannot access the e-bundle (PD27A 4.3–4.4). Do not assume that electronic filing always means nobody needs a paper version.
Disagreements, safeguarding and litigants in person
Dispute over inclusion
If one party says a record is essential and the compiler refuses to include it, identify the specific hearing issue, paragraph/page and basis on which inclusion is necessary. Propose a proportionate resolution. If unresolved, seek a timely direction rather than concealing the dispute, circulating an unauthorised alternative bundle or withholding material the court has ordered disclosed.
Confidentiality and safety
Family proceedings may contain protected addresses, medical information, police disclosure, allegations concerning children or material obtained for a restricted purpose. A party responsible for bundling should check the underlying order and confidentiality regime before transmitting documents, especially to a third party. Consider access needs and safe service arrangements in domestic-abuse cases; an administrative convenience cannot override protective directions.
Litigant in person and disability
PD27A expressly recognises circumstances in which an unrepresented applicant is not expected to compile the bundle and narrow circumstances where HMCTS may do so. Where a party cannot access electronic material because of disability, safety, technology or other participation barriers, raise that early with the court and seek workable directions, including paper access when appropriate. The rule's purpose is usable judicial material, not an arbitrary technological hurdle.
Unsafe or unnecessary disclosure
Check restrictions, minimise sensitive personal data where lawfully appropriate and never share children's case papers on a public file-sharing link merely to meet a deadline.
Disputed facts
Compile neutrally. A document may evidence that an allegation was made; it is not therefore proof that the allegation is true. Preserve source context and the ability to refer to competing evidence.
Risk of non-compliance
PD27A 3.1 warns that failures may lead to a case being removed from the list or moved back, and may lead to adverse or wasted costs orders. Those consequences are not automatic. The proportionate response is to explain any genuine obstacle promptly, propose a realistic remedy and, if necessary, ask for a direction in advance of the deadline.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.