The case of PM Project Services Ltd (PM) v Dairy Crest Ltd (DC) 2016 has shown the implications of court bundles not being properly paginated.
PM had made an application for summary judgment in relation to three contested separate claims for unpaid invoices totalling £1.2m, for construction work carried out by PM.
The second and third claims were supported by a witness statement exhibiting documents over 750 pages. It was found that the pages referenced in the statement were completely different from those in the bundle prepared for the hearing.
The judge gave up reading the witness statement after 2 hours due to the pagination problem and stated that any sensible pre-reading he could have done for the case was ‘de railed by the manner of pagination’.
The judge heard the application for summary judgment on the first claim which was rejected. It was ordered that the hearing be adjourned to hear the second and third claim, with directions for the bundles to be returned to PM’s solicitors to correct and to bear this cost and any costs thrown away by the adjournment.
Parties need to invest time and attention in preparing bundles, as this case illustrates the sanctions imposed by the court should you not get it right the first time.