Removing duplicates in a bundle
Removing duplicates in a bundle
Time can be wasted if there is more than one copy of the same document in the Bundle. When reading through the Final Hearing Bundle if the reader comes across a document which they think is the same as a document they have read elsewhere in the Bundle they may then feel they need to try to locate the copy they have already read and compare it, to check that it really is the same, before deciding whether or not they need to read through the copy they have just come across. This wastes time. Also sometimes the reader will be looking at a chronologically arranged section and be asking themselves questions such "are the photos on this range of pages a complete set of all the photos taken between 2012 and 2015?". If the reader is aware that there are other photos elsewhere in another section of the Bundle they may feel that they have to locate them just to check that they are duplicates of ones in the range already found and not additional to them. That also takes time. So unnecessary duplication should be avoided.
But, that said, duplication is actually desirable in some circumstances. If the bundle includes a letter which enclosed a single-page invoice then that invoice should obviously follow the letter so that the reader of the bundle can see what was enclosed with the letter. The invoice will be included as well in its own right in the correct chronological position according to its date but it also needs to appear just after the letter (dated later). So that is duplication but, on balance, it is desirable.
Of course if the letter had enclosed a 200 page report, and there were also 10 other letters enclosing the same 200 page report, then the balance of convenience favours replacing each of the 10 copies of the 200 page report with a single-page note giving the reference of the report so that the user of the bundle can locate a single copy of the report where it is in chronological position in its own right.
Another circumstance in which there could be duplication would be if there are two copies of the same document which have different references and both references are important because some statements in the Bundle use one reference, such a JJS27, and some other statements in the Bundle use another such as PMA12. A partial solution to this problem is to position one copy of the document in the appropriate chronological position and to also have a Duplicates with different exhibit marks section containing the other copies. Then anyone reading through the bundle sequentially is not presented with multiple copies yet the copies with different references are still available to be located by their references.
But a far better solution, in these circumstances, is to select the best copy of the document and add the exhibit marks of the other copies to its name (after its own exhibit mark) and not include the other copies at all. The copy of the document which is selected to be in the bundle will usually be the clearest copy.
To avoid duplication in a Bundle you can do one of the following (or a combination of them):-
Check the documents in your document management system for duplicates. Your system may have a facility which can automatically check for duplicate documents. Different systems may check for duplicates in slightly different ways. For example some systems may only check whether two files are absolutely identical at the pixel level and so would not detect a duplicate where the same paper document had been scanned in twice, whereas some other systems may detect a duplicate in this situation because they compare OCRed text. So even if you are using an automated system there is a place for some manual double-checking that all duplicates have been detected. If one copy of a document contains a marking which another copy does not, it may be that this is of no significance (e.g. just a bit of dust on the scanner glass) so that they should be treated as duplicates. On the other hand sometimes the presence or absence of a mark is important for the issues in the particular case so that each copy should be treated as a separate document and not a duplication. When you have identified a duplicate, move it to a special folder named e.g. Duplicates with different references - EXCLUDE from final bundle leaving only one copy of each document in a normal "included" folder. This allows you to double-check later if any query should arise about disclosure of documents.
At the point where you are about to load a witness statement exhibit to your document management system (the system which will later be used to generate the Final Hearing Bundle) check whether another copy of the same document is already loaded and, if it is, do not load the additional copy.
Whichever approach you take you need to ensure that any references quoted in statements are maintained, so:-
Whenever you take a decision to exclude a duplicate (by moving it to a Duplicates with different references - EXCLUDE from final bundle folder), add its exhibit mark (or statement of case reference and any other references for it used by any document in the Bundle) to the copy which is to remain included.
Whenever you take a decision to not load an exhibit because another copy of the document is already loaded, add its exhibit mark to the copy which is already loaded
Exactly how to add references depends on the document management system you are using. For example if you are using the "Scan for Duplicates" facility in Litigation Ready you can tap the "delete" symbol for a duplicate and use the delete confirmation panel to copy its exhibit mark from its filename, then cancel the "delete" before moving the duplicate to the Duplicates with different references - EXCLUDE from final bundle folder. You can then tap on the document which is to remain, tap its edit symbol and paste that exhibit mark or other reference just after the existing one.
Note that you don't need to add an extra disclosure reference to the included copy when moving a duplicate to the Duplicates with different references - EXCLUDE from final bundle - unless statements actually refer to documents by disclosure number, rather than exhibit mark, which would be unusual. Any queries about disclosure should be resolved before the final hearing and every duplicate is available in the Duplicates with different references - EXCLUDE from final bundle and its disclosure reference can to be checked as necessary if there are queries. But when the Final Hearing Bundle comes to be prepared it will not include disclosure lists so the only references needed will be exhibit marks in witness statements (and statement of case references and any other references used by documents in the bundle such as an accompanying document number in a Land Registry Case Summary document if that is included in the bundle.
The occasion when you are dealing with duplicates is an opportunity to consider how matters will be arranged so that it will be possible, in the final bundle, for a user of the bundle to easily look up each document as they read through each statement which quotes the exhibit mark of documents. Ideally this should be accomplished with hyperlinks but if hyperlinks are not feasible for any statement then some easy-to-use arrangement using a PDF Find function should be facilitated. Neither Bundledocs nor Litigation Ready provide automatic hyperlinks so if hyperlinks are to be added in these systems the hyperlinks need to be added using PDF software.
If you do detect a duplicate and decide that one copy should be moved to the Duplicates with different references - EXCLUDE from final bundle folder, how do you decide which copy to keep in the "included" folder and which copy to move to the "excluded" folder?
For photos and diagrams it is particularly important that the best quality copy is included, but for most documents which consist only of typed text there is no need to spend too long deciding which copy is of slightly better quality as long as the copy which it is decided to include is clear.
You don't necessarily have to include a copy with an exhibit label on the first page - In the Final Hearing Bundle the exhibit marks by which a document is referred to in statements will all, by one means or another, be associated with the single copy of the document which is selected for inclusion so it is not necessary to include the actual labelled copy if there is an unlabelled copy of the same document.
Copy of Document How referred to in statement Exhibit mark (or statement of case reference) in e.g. document name
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 (unlabelled) App-12 Not included in bundle
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 (unlabelled) Resp-2 Resp-2 App-12 JJS23 HGT31
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 (labelled JJS23) JJS23 Not included in bundle
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 (labelled HGT31) HGT31 Not included in bundle
Normally the clearest copy should be the only copy included but in some exceptional circumstances it might be necessary to include both the clearest copy and another copy because justice must always be done to what the witness was looking at when they signed their statement. For example -
A witness might exhibit a poor copy of a single photo or plan and say something about it which appears (from better copies of the same photo or plan which are available) to be incorrect. For example they might say in their statement that the exhibited photo of a piece of land shows that at the time it was taken the land was overgrown with no signs of cultivation. Since that is what they are saying the exhibited copy should be included - the actual copy with exhibit label (and be identified as the actual exhibit by having its document name prefixed with the exhibit mark).
Copy of Document How referred to in statement Exhibit mark in document name Comment
Photo IMG_1234 App-12 Not included in bundle
Photo IMG_1234 Rd-5 Rd-5 App-12 HGT31
JJS23 Photo IMG_1234 JJS23 JJS23 poor quality labelled JJS23
Photo IMG_1234 HGT31 Not included in bundle labelled HGT31
Normally the two photos - the good one and the poor quality one - would be arranged so that they appear next to each other in the Bundle so that they can easily be compared.
A witness may exhibit an enlarged copy of a photo and say, in their statement, that it shows some feature. Enlarged copies of photos do not always show things clearly - in fact pixelation may make things less clear than in an unenlarged copy - but since the witness is referring to an enlarged copy which is exhibited and saying that they can see some feature in it, that enlarged copy should be included in the bundle - the actual copy with exhibit label at the top right (and be identified as the actual exhibit by having its document name prefixed by the exhibit mark). If an unenlarged copy is also exhibited by the witness, that copy would also be included - the actual copy with exhibit label at the top right (and be identified as the actual exhibit by having its document name prefixed by the exhibit mark). Ideally the enlarged copy will have an exhibit mark with an "a" suffix (e.g. JJS22 for unenlarged copy, JJS22a for enlarged copy) but, whatever exhibit marking has been used, both enlarged and unenlarged exhibits, with labels, should be included. A good quality copy of the photo does need to be included so if the exhibit unenlarged copy is not the best quality copy available a third copy - a clear copy exhibited by another witness or a clear unexhibited copy - should also be included. Normally A4 size is sufficient for this third copy and, of course, in the eBundle PDF the reader can zoom in at will. Normally the three (or two) photos - the good one and the other or others - would be arranged so that they appear next to each other in the Bundle so that they can easily be compared.
A witness might take a copy of a photo (or plan) and make a mark on it such as a red circle round some feature that they are going to refer to in their statement, and exhibit that marked copy. They should also exhibit an unmarked copy. Ideally the marked copy will have an exhibit mark with an "a" suffix (e.g. JJS22 for original copy, JJS22a for marked copy) but, whatever exhibit marking has been used, both copies with labels, should be included. Note that generally the marked copy should be assigned the same date (and time) as the unmarked copy so that they will appear next to each other when arranged chronologically in a Bundle for the tribunal hearing BUT it must be indicated within brackets in the name of the marked copy that the marking is recent - made by a witness when giving their witness statement for the current proceedings - and not original. This is to distinguish recently marked photos from other photos there may be elsewhere in the Bundle which might have markings already - made by the person who took the photo at the time, or made some time later but not made recently by a witness making a statement for the current proceedings. A good quality copy of the photo does need to be included so if the witness does not exhibit an unmarked copy - or if they do but it is not the best quality copy available - a third copy - a clear copy exhibited by another witness or a clear unexhibited copy - should also be included.
At the disclosure of documents stage a native copy of a JPG or other computer document is typically exchanged containing metadata together with an image-and-metadata PDF "print" showing both the image and relevant items of metadata where that party wishes to rely on metadata. If, when a witness refers in their statement to a photo by exhibit mark, they are looking at a paper copy of the image-only document then the image-only document needs to be included in the usual chronological position (and be flagged as that exhibit) even if an image-and-metadata PDF print is also included. Similarly, of course, if the witness was looking at an image-and-metadata print when they signed their statement, the image-and-metadata print must be included (and be flagged as that exhibit) notwithstanding that the original image-only copy may also be included (e.g. because it is clearer than the image within the image-and-metadata PDF print).
The image within an image-and-metadata "print" might be quite small in which case a larger copy of the image may need to be included as well.
A witness might have a single exhibit containing a series of photos, perhaps with multiple photos per page. This is not good practice but it does sometimes happen. In this case it would not be easy for someone reading the statement and referring to exhibits as they are referenced to identify and go to each of the individual copies of the photos scattered, as they might be, throughout chronological sections. So the single exhibit containing multiple photos would be included in the Bundle just after the statement, even though there are also individual copies of each photo elsewhere.
This information page is designed to be used only by clients of John Antell who have entered into an agreement for the provision of legal services. The information in it is necessarily of a general nature and will not be applicable to every case: it is intended to be used only in conjunction with more specific advice to the individual client about the individual case. This information page should not be used by, or relied on, by anyone else.
This page was lasted updated in December 2025 Disclaimer