A hearing bundle is the case file rewritten for someone who has never seen it: a judge, a tribunal panel, an arbitrator, an adjudicator. It contains the documents they need, in an order that makes sense, with page numbers everyone can refer to. The rules on format vary by forum and jurisdiction, so always check the directions you have been given. The method below works underneath almost any set of rules.
Start with the directions, not the documents
Read the order or practice guidance first and write down the constraints: page limits, who prepares the bundle, the deadline for agreeing the index, whether it must be electronic, how pages are numbered, whether bookmarks are required. Most bundle disasters come from building the wrong thing well.
Select: relevance, not volume
Go through the case file and ask one question of each item: does the decision-maker need this to decide an issue in dispute? If not, leave it out. Duplicates, chasers, "please see attached" emails and drafts rarely belong. A slim bundle is read; a fat one is skimmed. Keep a note of what you excluded and why, because the other side may ask.
Order: a structure the reader expects
A common structure, adapted to your forum:
- Index — every document, with date, description and page range.
- Pleadings or statements of case — the documents that define the dispute.
- Orders and directions — in date order.
- Witness statements — with their exhibits, or cross-referenced to them.
- Expert reports, if any.
- Correspondence and contemporaneous documents — in strict chronological order.
Chronological order inside each section is the single most useful thing you can do for a reader. It turns a pile into a story.
Paginate once, at the end
Page numbers are the shared language of the hearing. Number the whole bundle consecutively, and only after the contents are agreed; renumbering after people have prepared references is painful. If late documents arrive, add them at the end or as lettered pages (45A, 45B) rather than reflowing everything.
Describe documents neutrally
Index entries should say what a document is, not what it proves. "Email, landlord to tenant, 3 March" rather than "Email showing tenant was warned". Argumentative descriptions invite disputes about the index itself.
Electronic bundles
- One PDF, or a small number of volumes, with bookmarks matching the index.
- Pagination matching the PDF page numbers, so "page 112" means the same thing to everyone.
- Text-searchable, with scans run through text recognition.
- Readable orientation: rotate landscape pages, remove blank pages.
Why the case file decides how hard this is
Bundling is quick when the underlying file was kept well: documents named consistently, dated, with the email threads filed alongside them rather than scattered across inboxes. It is miserable when the first job is finding things. The habits that help are covered in file naming conventions and the hidden cost of using email as a filing system. A case-based system that keeps each matter's files, correspondence and timeline in one record makes the selection step a review rather than a search.
A final check
- Every page in the index exists, and every page is in the index.
- Witness statements are the signed versions.
- Nothing privileged or irrelevant slipped in.
- The other side has the same version you do.
