PD 27A Redux: March 2026 Family Court Bundle Changes Primer

E-bundles were only to be used in High Court where directed by the judge (2.5) and in all other hearings only if approved by the designated judge for the area (2.5(a)).

The norm was to prepare paper bundles, one of which would be filed with court with extras prepared for any witnesses giving evidence (7.4).

The new PD27A has brought practice up to date, stating that e-bundles are the norm, with paper bundles only being appropriate in ‘exceptional circumstances’ (4.2).

Paper bundles may still be required should the court so direct (4.3(a)) or if there is a ‘realistic possibility of a witness giving evidence in person’ (4.3(b)). However, this is subject to 4.4 which authorises paper bundles to be dispensed with entirely if electronic equipment is provided to the judge/witnesses/litigant in person to view the e-bundle on.

Practice Point: Such provision is possible with providers such as CaseCentre.

The applicant would normally be responsible for preparing the bundle (3.1), unless the applicant is a litigant in person, in which case the first respondent who is not a litigant in person would be responsible (3.1).

Where both/all parties are litigants in person, neither have to prepare a bundle. If they nevertheless decide to create one, it must abide by the rules in this practice direction (3.1).

Whilst the law remains the same regarding who is generally responsible, where both/all parties are litigants in person, provision is made for the HM Courts and Tribunals Service to create the bundle (4.7). HMCTS bundles are not required to comply with PD27A requirements and can be assumed to be of the rough and ready variety. The HMCTS provision recognises the difficulties that litigants in person may have in preparing a bundle themselves.

As stated by the Family Law Bar Association in their response to the 2024 consultation on PD27A, ‘Some have no access to a computer and, even if they do, would not know about or have access to the necessary software to enable them to prepare a bundle, far less how to add page numbers, scan for searchable text and prepare a hyperlinked index’.^†

Bates numbering to be used for proceedings which are not for a financial remedy. Consecutive Arabic numbering for applications for a financial remedy.

Paragraph 1.2 provides definitions for the different styles of numbering.

Only those which are ‘relevant’, ‘necessary’ or will be referred to during the hearing (4.1).

Certain types of documentation should not be included, unless judicial permission has been given and/or they fall into one of the categories identified at 4.1:
a) correspondence (including letters of instruction to experts);
b) medical records (including hospital, GP and health visitor records);
c) bank and credit card statements and other financial records;
d) notes of contact visits;
e) foster carer logs;
f) social services files (with the exception of any assessment being relied on by any of the parties); and
g) police disclosure.

The same general rule survives the update: documents should only be included which are ‘relevant’, ‘necessary’ or will be referred to during the hearing (5.2).

However, the following have been added to the list of prohibited documents:

• Correspondence between legal representatives (5.2(a))
• Copies of emails, text messages, WhatsApp messages or any form of social media communications (5.2(b))
• Voice notes or other recordings (5.2(c))
• Photographs (5.2(h))

The following have been removed from this list:

• Medical records
• Police disclosure

The complete updated list can be found at paragraph 5.2.

Several of these amendments align with recent guidance concerning the increased use of technology by litigants to prove or disprove allegations within proceedings. In particular, the use of covert recordings has become more commonplace, motivating the 2025 Family Justice Council Guidance on Covert Recordings in Family Law Proceedings concerning children.

The exclusion of recordings from court bundles pursuant to 5.2(c) accords with the guidance that such recordings should not be listened to until the court has thoroughly considered the relevance and proportionality of its admission into evidence.^‡

No reference made.

If a party wishes for the bundle to be in Welsh, they may now provide notice of this to court and all other parties. Directions for translation would then be made at the hearing (5.3).

For paper bundles, various rules were set out in paragraph 5, including that they must:

• Be limited to one A4 size ring binder or lever arch file (5.1)
• Be limited to 350 sheets of one sided A4 paper (5.1 and 5.2(a))
• Use no smaller than size 12 font with 1.5 or double spacing (5.2(c))
• Be clearly identifiable on the spine and front (see 5.3)

Guidance for e-bundles was sparse. They merely needed to align with the formatting rules for paper bundles as far as it accords with local arrangements (5.3).

The new Practice Direction gives extensive guidance for e-bundles as opposed to paper bundles.

The rules for paper bundles are broadly similar. The only differences are that the pages of the bundle should be:

• Double sided (12.2(a))
• Divided into numbered paragraphs (12.2(b))
• Where possible be in Arial or Times New Roman font (12.2(d)) and in no smaller than size 12 font with 1.5 or double spacing (12.2(c))

It is pleasing to see the new Practice Direction recognising and accommodating for neurodiverse readers, Arial font being recommended since it is proven to be more accessible to such individuals. This accords with the 2025 Family Justice Council Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System and a growing emphasis upon ensuring accessibility for all.

The new rules for e-bundles are set out at 11.2:

• It must be in PDF format;
• There is a page limit of 350 pages unless judicial permission is acquired to exceed this;
• Page numbers must be computer-generated;
• The computer-generated page numbers must match the PDF ‘page label’ numbering;
• The pagination of any paper bundle prepared must match the e-bundle;
• Every document must be included in the index;
• All significant documents and all sections must be bookmarked with a short description and the page number;
• The bundle should be searchable;
• All pages with text must be subject to Optical Character Recognition (OCR);
• All pages should be correctly orientated so that they can be read from left to right;
• Default page view should be 100%;
• If permission is given for a core bundle to be produced, a PDF bundle should be made which complies with the same requirements as a paper bundle;
• There should be a single hearing e-bundle and a separate (if relevant) bundle of authorities;
• Resolution should be no greater than 300 dpi;
• The bundle should be electronically optimized to ensure that the file size is not larger than necessary;
• Font must not be smaller than 12-point font with 1.5 or double line spacing and margins on each side of the page; and
• Typeface should be Arial or Times New Roman (with a preference for Arial as it is proven to be more accessible to neurodiverse readers).

The page limit for the entire bundle was 350 sheets of one sided A4 paper (5.1 and 5.2(a)).

5.2A.1 then set out the page limit for individual documents as follows:

• Case summary: 6
• Statement of issues: 2
• Position statement: 3
• Chronology: 10
• Skeleton argument: 20
• List of essential reading: 1
• Witness statement or affidavit (exclusive of exhibits): 25
• Expert’s or other report: 40 (including executive summary at the beginning of no more than 4 pages)
• Care plan: 10

4.3(a) states that a case summary of the background of the hearing (a preliminary document) should be limited ‘if practicable’ to 4 A4 pages.

The page limit remains at 350 for both paper and e-bundles, however, can be exceeded with judicial permission (11.2(b)).

In their response to the 2024 consultation on this Practice Direction, at [48], the Family Law Bar Association highlighted how the page limit, without the ability to extend with permission, can lead to ‘unnecessary legal costs as solicitors fall into dispute as to how to cram the material into a limited bundle’.

Most of the page limits for individual documents have remained the same but can also now be extended by court if this is necessary for the just disposal of the case (8.1). The only three explicit changes to page numbers are:

1. Position Statements can now be varying lengths depending on the type of hearing (as set out in Section 3 below).
2. For financial remedies, the length of skeleton arguments is now governed by the Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings (6.15). There is no general page limit for Skeleton Arguments in ‘all other’ proceedings.
3. Case summaries of the background of the hearing can now be up to 6 pages in public law and all other proceedings (7.6(a) and 7.10(a)). This document is no longer needed for financial remedies.

The current deadlines will be all too familiar to practitioners.

• The person responsible for making the bundle must send a paginated index to the other party/ies no less than 4 working days before the hearing (6.1)
• The bundle must be given to counsel no less than 3 working days before the hearing (6.2)
• The bundle must be lodged with Court not less than 2 working days before the hearing (6.3)
• Preliminary Documents must be filed with court no later than 11am the day before the hearing (6.4)

From March 2026, new deadlines will become enforceable, allowing the court longer periods of time to consider the evidence in any given case (13.2):

• Parties are to agree upon the contents of the bundle no later than 7 working days before the hearing
• The bundle must be filed and served no later than 5 working days before the hearing
• Preliminary documents must be filed and served no later than 11am the working day before the hearing.

Practice Point: the earlier deadline to file and serve the bundle is likely to be one of the most challenging updates for practitioners. Advance preparation is now more crucial than ever. It is advisable to provide such deadlines to any experts where relevant to ensure that all necessary documentation is received in time for submission.

Rules regarding the lodging of bundles were brief and limited to paper bundles sent via post, DX or courier (7). The exception to this is where the hearing is at the Royal Courts of Justice, in which case specific rules were set out in 8.

If the bundle was not lodged in the correct place, the court were authorised to treat it as not having been lodged or imposing sanctions as described in paragraph 12.1 (7.1(a)&(b)). Similarly, if preliminary documents were not delivered by 11am the day before the hearing, the clerk was authorised not to accept it (8.1(a) & (b).

The new Practice Direction greatly expands these rules, providing separate instructions for paper bundles as opposed to e-bundles.

Instructions for paper bundles are set out between 15.2 and 15.3. It remains the case that bundles lodged in the wrong place may be treated by the court as not having been lodged at all (15.1(a) and a clerk can still refuse to accept preliminary documents is delivered after 11am the day before the hearing (16.2). Further sanctions are also open to the court pursuant to 15.1(b).

For e-bundles, practitioners and litigants must ensure that the filename contains: the date of the hearing, the case reference number, a short version of the name of the case and an indication of the content of the bundle (14.2(a)). Lodging should be through the online portal (14.2(b)) or via email if the portal cannot be accessed (14.2(c)).

Once lodged, any amendments to the bundle will only be permitted with judicial permission and only if there is an accepted error or an additional document is required to be included (13.3). If permission is given, the court must be provided with both the new/amended document and, separately, the entire revised bundle (11.2(m)).

Practice Point: if the hearing is taking place at the Royal Courts of Justice, separate rules for the lodging of bundles are set out in Chapter 16. Do note that you are now required to email the judge of the High Court no later than 3pm the day before the hearing to check that the judge has received the bundle and preliminary documents, as opposed to phoning them (8.2(a). Additionally, the relevant email address for the Clerk of the Rules has now changed to rcj.familyhighcourt@justice.gov.uk (16.3(b)).

Where parties wish for a hearing to be vacated or adjourned, a joint letter must be sent to court with a short background summary, the written consent of each party (or where consent isn’t provided, an explanation for this), and a draft order (11.1).

This procedure remains the same except for a one important addition. Where the application and accompanying documents cannot be uploaded to the portal, as will presently be the case in all private law children proceedings (pending roll out of the hoped for private law portal later in 2026/2027), the practitioner must email these documents to court as well as filing a hard copy with court as soon as practicable (19.1(b)(i)).

The new Practice Direction retains these rules, however, with three important modifications:

1. Where a case is reported in a law report with a headnote, this must be included rather than transcripts (10.2).
2. Practice Directions and Guidance relevant to the citation of authorities must be abided by (10.3).
3. If an authority is to be cited, a copy or hyperlink to the case must be provided to any litigant in person in advance of the hearing (10.4).

Although set out separately for financial remedy cases (6.13) as opposed to all other proceedings (7.19), identical advice is provided in relation to any reference to an authority in a position statement. The proposition of law the authority demonstrates must be stated first, after which one must identify which parts of the authority which support the proposition. In both steps there should be no extensive quotation from any authority.

No reference made.

Litigants must now set out their attempts to resolve issues through NCDR within position statements. This is a crucial amendment, correlating with the growing need for out of court resolution in a climate where courts are overwhelmed (6.12(j)(i)&(ii); 7.18(g)(i)&(ii)).