Relief and procedural signposting - Authorities list and bun...

Learning Outcomes

This article covers relief and procedural signposting for authorities lists and bundle pagination, including:

• How to compile a concise authorities list aligned with the Practice Direction on citation of authorities, using neutral citations, preferred reports, and pinpoint references
• Best practice for bundle pagination and indexing, with clear sections, tabs, and continuous numbering across volumes
• Preparation and navigation of electronic bundles (OCR, bookmarks, hyperlinked indexes) and mapping bundle references to PDF pagination
• Focused applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 (Denton) where late authorities or pagination errors arise
• Procedural signposting techniques in court and skeleton arguments to direct judges efficiently to the precise material
• Professional duties to the court: drawing relevant adverse authority, candidly correcting mistakes, and avoiding wasted time
• Case management powers (CPR 3.1) and the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) guiding the court’s response to procedural defects
• Practical steps to minimise prejudice, propose fair costs outcomes, and maintain hearing efficiency
• Application of these principles to realistic SQE2 advocacy scenarios and typical court guides and directions

SQE2 Syllabus

For SQE2, you are required to understand the practical rules and procedures regarding relief from procedural errors, preparation and use of authorities lists, and proper bundle pagination and signposting during hearings, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The function and requirements of an authorities list in written and oral advocacy (including neutral citations, preference for official reports, and pinpoint references).
• Proper pagination of bundles, including numbering systems, indexing, tabs, and the move to electronic bundles (bookmarks, searchable text, hyperlinked indexes).
• The available relief for mistakes or omissions in bundle preparation or listing (e.g. late authorities, pagination errors), including the three‑stage Denton test under CPR 3.9.
• The importance of procedural signposting in court submissions, skeleton arguments, and when addressing bundles or authorities.
• Best practice for providing clear references and directions for the court and other parties, and professional duties to draw relevant law (for and against) to the court’s attention.
• Case management powers (CPR 3.1), the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), and typical court directions and court guides on bundles and authorities.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What is the main purpose of an authorities list, and when must it be produced?
2. Why is bundle pagination important, and what is generally required in terms of pagination?
3. How would you seek relief if you realise, on the day of hearing, that a key authority has been omitted from your authorities list?
4. Give one practical method for directing the judge to a passage in your bundle during a hearing.

Introduction

Procedural presentation of authorities and bundles is tested in SQE2 through both written and oral submissions. Effective advocacy involves more than knowledge of the law—it requires clear procedural signposting so that the judge and other parties can follow your references easily. Ineffective or ambiguous signposting can cause significant disadvantage, confusion, and even adverse costs orders.

The authorities list and bundle pagination help the court understand the material relied upon, save time, and prevent unnecessary difficulties at a hearing. However, procedural mistakes can occur, such as missed authorities or poor pagination. Knowing the remedies and best practices will improve your performance in both written and oral advocacy. This is part of an advocate’s duty to the court: to assist the proper administration of justice, avoid wasting time, and draw the court’s attention to relevant legal materials even if they undermine your case.

Key Term: Authorities List
An itemised document listing all case law, legislation, or secondary material to be referred to during a hearing, submitted in advance and usually in a specified format.

Key Term: Skeleton Argument
A concise written outline of the issues, propositions of law, and submissions with pinpoint references to the bundle and authorities relied upon.

Compiling an Authorities List

The authorities list sets out the cases, statutes, and secondary sources an advocate intends to rely upon. It ensures transparency and allows the court and other parties to follow legal submissions without delay.

Authorities lists typically include neutral citations, names of cases in the correct order, and precise references (volume, page, paragraph) for each authority. In the civil courts, the authorities list is often required shortly before a hearing, as set out in relevant practice directions, court guides, and pre-trial orders. For appeals and some specialist lists, limits may be imposed on the number of authorities and “core authorities” may be required.

Good practice (consistent with the Practice Direction (Citation of Authorities)) includes:

• Cite only those authorities necessary for the propositions advanced; avoid overburdening the court with unnecessary materials.
• Prefer the official Law Reports if available (AC, QB, Ch, Fam). If not available, use WLR or All ER; if none exist, provide an approved transcript.
• Provide neutral citations where available and pinpoints to paragraph numbers rather than just page numbers for modern reports.

Key Term: Neutral Citation
A court-assigned citation that identifies a judgment independently of any law report (e.g. [2014] EWCA Civ 906), used with paragraph pinpoints.

Key Term: Pinpoint Citation
A precise cross-reference to the relevant paragraph or page in an authority so the court can locate the exact proposition relied upon.

Practical drafting tips:

• Group authorities by type (cases, statutes, secondary sources) and order them alphabetically within each group.
• For each case, give the case name, neutral citation, preferred report citation (if any), and pinpoints to the specific paragraphs relied upon.
• If referring to an unreported judgment, provide an approved copy (e.g. from BAILII or an official transcript) and ensure readability.
• Where the court has imposed a maximum number of authorities, identify a “core” set and consult the other side to agree a combined or joint list where appropriate.
• Cross-reference the authorities list to your skeleton argument so the judge can see exactly which propositions each authority supports.

Key Term: Core Authorities
A short set of essential cases agreed or directed for a hearing (commonly on appeal) to focus the court on the key authorities only.

Worked Example 1.1

You are instructed in a fast track trial and required to submit your authorities list two days in advance. What must be listed? How should you format it?

Answer:
List each case you intend to refer to (including full neutral citation and a short title), statutes by section/chapter, and any secondary sources. Use the specified format (see relevant Practice Direction), and number authorities. Provide official Law Report citations where available and add pinpoint paragraph references to each proposition relied upon. Keep the list focused and avoid duplicating authorities for the same proposition.

Key Term: Bundle
A consecutively paginated collection of court documents (including statements, evidence, and authorities) produced for use at a hearing.

Bundle Pagination and Indexing

Bundle pagination means assigning each page in the hearing bundle a unique, consecutive page number and providing a corresponding index.

Key Term: Pagination
Systematic numbering of bundle pages in order from start to finish, allowing precise direction to any document, tab, or passage by all parties.

Consecutive pagination allows quick reference—there is no ambiguity over where a particular piece of evidence or authority can be found. Court rules and guides (e.g. CPR practice directions on trial bundles and appeals, and the civil court guides) require:

• One comprehensive index with clear section headings (statements of case, witness evidence, exhibits, orders, correspondence if permitted, authorities if directed to be in the same bundle).
• Dividers or tabs separating sections, with indexing that mirrors the tabs.
• Continuous page numbering across the bundle (and across volumes where directed) so that “Bundle A/123” or “Volume 2/451” identifies a unique page.
• Avoid mixed numbering systems (e.g. separate numbering per tab) unless the court has directed this.

Where authorities are placed in a separate authorities bundle, they should be tabbed and paginated internally, with their own index. Do not embed authorities randomly within the evidence bundle unless the court directs a single consolidated bundle including authorities.

Electronic bundles are now common in many courts.

Key Term: Electronic Bundle (E‑bundle)
A single, bookmarked, searchable PDF (or set of PDFs) containing the hearing materials, with a hyperlinked index and consistent PDF page numbering.

In e-bundles:

• Use optical character recognition (OCR) so text is searchable.
• Ensure the PDF page numbers match or clearly map to the bundle pagination used in references; if they differ, state both (“Bundle p. 123 (PDF 135)”).
• Include a hyperlinked index and bookmarks to each tab and major document, ideally to the exact page rather than the first page of a section.
• Follow any local e-bundle protocol (file naming, size limits, bookmarking standards, and delivery method via the court’s platform).

Exam Warning

Failing to paginate or index a bundle may result in refusal to proceed, wasted costs, or an adjournment. Always cross-check finalised bundles and lists against the court’s requirements.

Worked Example 1.2

Midway through submissions you discover that your bundle index omits pages 250–255, which contain a key exhibit. The judge cannot find the passage. What should you do?

Answer:
Stop and candidly inform the court of the pagination defect. Hand up replacement index pages and/or a short supplemental bundle containing pages 250–255 with consecutive pagination and an updated index. Provide clean copies to the judge and opponent, give precise references (e.g. “Supplemental p. 3, para 12”), and propose a brief pause for both to locate the passage. Offer to bear any reasonable costs caused by the error.

Procedural Relief—Correcting Errors

Procedural mistakes can and do occur. Common errors include omission of an authority, poor pagination, or referencing a document not included in the bundle.

If errors are identified before the hearing, notify all parties and the court immediately, submitting corrected documents. If an authority is omitted, you can seek relief (permission to rely upon the authority despite the mistake). The court’s broad case management powers (CPR 3.1) and the overriding objective guide the approach.

Key Term: Procedural Relief
Discretionary permission by the court to cure a procedural defect (e.g., late addition of a missing authority or correction of bundle errors).

Key Term: Overriding Objective
The duty under CPR 1.1 to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, including saving expense, ensuring expeditious and fair conduct, and allocating an appropriate share of the court’s resources.

In deciding applications to rely on late materials or cure defects, the court often applies the relief from sanctions framework under CPR 3.9 and the guidance in Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906:

• Assess the seriousness and significance of the breach (e.g. is this a minor pagination error, or a wholesale non-compliance that jeopardises the hearing?).
• Consider why the default occurred (e.g. genuine oversight, IT failure, late disclosure).
• Evaluate all the circumstances, including efficient conduct of litigation and compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders.

Key Term: Relief from Sanctions
Discretionary relief under CPR 3.9 granted by applying the Denton three-stage test: seriousness/significance; reasons; all the circumstances.

Practical steps when seeking relief:

• Act promptly; notify the court and opponent as soon as the error is identified.
• Provide the missing authority or corrected materials immediately, with pinpoints and a short note explaining relevance.
• Demonstrate lack of prejudice: confirm the opponent has time to consider the material or propose a pragmatic timetable adjustment.
• Propose a fair costs outcome (e.g. costs thrown away) to reflect any inconvenience.
• Confirm that the relief sought will not imperil the trial date or hearing length.

When the opponent is in default (e.g. a non-compliant bundle), maintain professional courtesy and assist the court: propose a practical solution, invite directions to regularise the bundle, and reserve costs if appropriate. The court expects cooperation to progress the case consistently with the overriding objective.

Worked Example 1.3

During an interim application, you realise your authorities list omits a key case. The hearing is about to start. What do you do?

Answer:
Notify the judge and other parties as soon as possible. Provide a copy of the authority if not already included in the bundle. Ask permission to rely on it, explaining the reason for omission and why the authority is important. The court will consider prejudice and fairness when deciding whether to grant relief. Offer a short adjournment if needed and an appropriate costs order to mitigate any prejudice.

Worked Example 1.4

Your opponent serves an e-bundle the evening before the hearing. It lacks bookmarks and the PDF page numbers do not match the index. How do you proceed?

Answer:
Tell the court at the outset that navigation is problematic and propose a joint solution (for example, a short adjournment to create a bookmarked index or filing a corrected index with PDF page cross-mapping). Offer your assistance to prepare a corrected index and mapping table. Ask the court for directions to regularise bundle navigation and reserve costs of the remedial work.

Procedural Signposting in Court

Procedural signposting is the active guidance you give to the court to indicate exactly where to find your supporting evidence, authority, or bundle material. This is essential for efficient advocacy and a smooth hearing.

Key methods include:

• Citing precise page and tab numbers when referring to documents or authorities.
• Indicating paragraph numbers or using highlighters/flags if permitted by the court.
• Including cross-references in written submissions (e.g., “See tab 3, page 45, paragraph 7”).
• Updating the court immediately about any bundle changes or pagination corrections before submissions begin.
• In e-bundles, giving both the bundle page and the PDF page if they differ, and directing the judge via bookmarks.

Align your oral signposting with your skeleton argument:

• Start with a short route map: issues, propositions of law, and where to find the support in the bundle and authorities.
• Do not recite abstract law; apply legal rules directly to the facts with pinpoint references.
• Confirm the judge has the same pagination and that pre-reading has been done, then proceed methodically.

Revision Tip

Always review the final version of your authorities list and bundle in detail before the hearing. Create your own signposting index or summary if needed.

Key Term: Skeleton Argument
A concise written outline of issues and submissions that should cross‑refer to bundle pages and pinpoint citations for each proposition.

Worked Example 1.5

You are asked by the judge to direct him quickly to the part of the bundle containing a witness's key statement about a disputed fact. What do you say?

Answer:
"May I direct you to tab 2 of the bundle, page 37, paragraph 4, where the relevant statement is located." Confirm everyone is referring to the identical version and pagination. If using an e-bundle, add “PDF page 41” if different.

Worked Example 1.6

You quote a proposition from a case and the judge asks for the precise paragraph. You only have the page number from an older report. What should you do?

Answer:
Acknowledge the issue and provide the neutral citation paragraph as soon as possible: “I’m grateful, Your Honour. The equivalent is paragraph 42 in the neutral citation [2014] EWCA Civ 906.” If unsure, ask for a moment to locate the paragraph in the official report or approved online source and then give the correct pinpoint.

Ethical and professional standards when using authorities and bundles

Advocates must uphold duties to the court and the administration of justice. In the context of authorities and bundles:

• Do not mislead the court about what an authority decides, or cherry-pick extracts without acknowledging relevant limiting passages.
• Draw the court’s attention to adverse authority or procedural irregularities that materially affect the case outcome.
• Avoid wasting court time: prepare focused authorities lists and navigable bundles, and co-operate with opponents to remedy defects.
• If you make a mistake, correct it promptly and transparently.

These behaviours align with the overriding objective, the court’s expectation of efficient case management, and professional conduct standards.

Summary Table: Pagination and Relief

Practical drafting of skeletons, authorities lists and indexes

Concise but complete drafting improves navigation:

• Skeleton: set out issues, each submission, and for each submission give the bundle page, the authority with neutral citation, and pinpoint paragraph.
• Authorities list: keep to the necessary minimum, ensure one authoritative report per case, and add pinpoints relevant to each submission.
• Index: structure documents into logical sections, ensure the index mirrors tabs/bookmarks, and provide a mapping note where e-bundle and bundle pagination differ.

Where pre-reading is expected, consider a brief reading list that indicates the essential passages to be read in advance, with precise page/paragraph references.

Typical hearing housekeeping

At the outset of the hearing (especially in civil applications and appeals), deal with “housekeeping” briefly but clearly:

• Confirm the judge has the current bundle(s), skeletons, and authorities list.
• Identify any late additions and seek permission to rely upon them.
• Address time estimate, order of submissions, and any reading time required.
• Flag any pagination issues and provide the corrective documents.

Courteous and efficient housekeeping often prevents confusion later and demonstrates respect for the court’s process.

Civil and criminal contexts

While the detail of practice directions differs across jurisdictions, the core disciplines of signposting and bundle/authorities management are common. In criminal courts, authorities are usually kept to a minimum and the Crown Court Compendium is often the primary reference for directions of law. In civil courts, the demands on pagination, e-bundles, and citation are more formalised in CPR practice directions and court guides. In both, clarity and precision of reference remain essential.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The authorities list ensures transparency and court efficiency; it must include all planned references with neutral and pinpoint citations, and be kept focused.
• Bundle pagination means assigning consecutive numbers to all bundle pages and creating an accurate index; authorities often go in a separate, tabbed authorities bundle.
• Electronic bundles should be searchable, bookmarked, and indexed, with clear mapping between bundle references and PDF pagination.
• If mistakes are discovered, the court has discretion to allow late correction or inclusion (procedural relief), assessing fairness and prejudice; apply promptly and address the Denton tests when relevant.
• Procedural signposting involves clearly directing the court and parties to precise bundle locations and paragraphs during submissions; align oral signposting with your skeleton argument.
• Duties to the court require you to draw relevant law to the court’s attention (even adverse), avoid wasting time, and correct errors swiftly.
• Housekeeping at the start of a hearing (confirming documents, pagination, and any late materials) prevents confusion and supports efficient case management.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Authorities List
• Bundle
• Pagination
• Procedural Relief
• Skeleton Argument
• Neutral Citation
• Pinpoint Citation
• Electronic Bundle (E‑bundle)
• Relief from Sanctions
• Core Authorities
• Overriding Objective