Judges castigate firm over 'sloppy and casual' bundles

BUNDLES: solicitors failed to comply with good practice

A Gloucester law firm has been criticised by the Court of Appeal for the 'sloppy and casual' way it prepared bundles for a commercial dispute, with the judges slating the way documents were presented as 'verging on the scandalous'.

The judges hit out at Davies & Partners after its client, a firm of surveyors and valuers, issued proceedings against the Bank of Scotland when it called in an overdraft agreed with one of its customers which the firm had guaranteed.

Leeds-based Walker Morris acted for the bank.

Davies & Partners appealed after the case was thrown out.

However, the appeal court ruled that the original decision should stand and listed a catalogue of problems with the firm's bundles of evidence.

Mr Justice Munby complained that the firm had presented the court with seven lever arch files that were largely full of 'superfluous and inappropriate' information, but conversely omitted all or parts of many key documents.

Walker Morris and the bank itself had to step in and supply the missing information.

'The appellants' failure to comply with good practice and the specific requirements of relevant practice directions verged on the scandalous,' he said.

Lord Justice Chadwick said the court expected solicitors - in particular those instructed by 'substantial' clients in commercial disputes - to observe and comply with requirements in relation to the evidence to be used at an appeal.

'The bundles prepared by the appellants' solicitors in the present case give no reason to think any attempt was made to do so,' he said.

Walker Morris' head of commercial dispute resolution, Nick Bates, welcomed the decision.

'We are particularly pleased that the judgment is unequivocally in the bank's favour both in respect of the legal issues to be determined and the conduct of the parties' solicitors,' he said.

Davies & Partners partner Geoffrey Hand said: 'It is much to be regretted when these problems cause the court such difficulties, for which I presented formal apologies as, whatever the background, responsibility rests ultimately with the appellants' solicitors.'

Paula Rohan