Bond Dickinson has been criticised by a judge for wasting his time with an absolutely enormous bundle which forced him to wade through 2,000 pages of horseshit (not his words).

The firm was acting on an application for judicial review by National Rail, which objected to a planning inspector's decision to relax requirements for a housing development near railway tracks in Cumbria. After setting out the scintillating facts of the case, Mr Justice Holgate digressed from his High Court judgment to roast Bond Dickinson.

Telling the court, "I regret the need to have to make some observations on the inappropriate manner in which the claim was put before the court", he called Bond Dickinson's practises "not acceptable". Despite warnings issued by other judges on the subject, he said, Bond Dickinson had accompanied its claim with no fewer than six volumes comprising over 2,000 pages of "largely irrelevant material". In addition, the firm's skeleton argument was "long, diffuse and often confused", "lacked proper cross-referencing" and "gave little help to the court". 

    And so now Slothy's home is a crap bundle.

Justice Holgate told the firm to go away and come back with a submission no longer than 250 pages. When it did, he found that he only needed to refer to "5 or 6" pages outside of it. Meaning that BD's original gargantuan effort featured at least 1,744 pages of verbiage. To top it off, he noted, the "one rather obvious point" on which NR's application turned and which resulted in its claim for judicial review being granted, was "merely alluded to" by Bond Dickinson. And it was, he said, "buried", in a part of the bundle in "which it does not belong".

The judge said "forensic chaff" like BD's effort could drive up costs for defendants forced to deal with "such a welter of material" and wasted the court's finite resources.  However he did also criticise Network Rail, for forcing its barrister to pursue and resurrect "utterly hopeless" arguments, even though it was "inappropriate and not a proper use of the Court's resources".

Bond Dickinson took the judge's warning against prolixity a bit too seriously, declining to comment at all.
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 22 September 17 10:23

In addition, the firm's skeleton argument was "long, diffuse and often confused", "lacked proper cross-referencing" and "gave little help to the court"

... has he come across Irwin Mitchell, one wonders?

Anonymous 23 September 17 09:35

People do need to get it down to what is actually relevant and take a practical look at what will be needed.

Anonymous 23 September 17 17:07

Surely counsel prepared the skeleton and confirmed the bundle contents as he was undertaking the hearing?! Odd for the judge to have a go at the firm then, one would think?

Anonymous 25 September 17 11:45

Part of the following appears on their website

'With 255 specialists including 42 partners – most of whom are recognised as leaders in their field - we’re one of the largest dispute resolution teams in the industry'.

I can imagine the so-called specialists asking each other what should go into a bundle. Perhaps reading the rules may help.

Anonymous 25 September 17 12:56

'Justice Holgate told the firm to go away and come back with a submission no longer than 250 pages. When it did, he found that he only needed to refer to "5 or 6" pages outside of it. Meaning that BD's original gargantuan effort featured at least 1,744 pages of verbiage.'

... Unless my maths is creative, it should read '...at least 1,745 pages of verbiage'. Considering this mistake, could it be 'Justice Colgate' instead?

Anonymous 26 September 17 11:47

http://www.womblebonddickinson.com

I thought Bond Dickinson was dead and now they are Wombles

Anonymous 02 October 17 14:21

"Making good use of the things that we find...things that the everyday folk leave behind..."