Print article
Author
Author
Traditional Bundling
At Michelmores, trial bundles are typically prepared using BundleDocs – which is a trainee’s rite of passage. Bundles contain all the relevant documents for the case; pleadings, correspondence, witness statements, disclosure materials, court orders and any other required sections. During trial, barristers refer to specific sections or page numbers within the bundle, usually prepared by the claimant, while all parties follow along on their laptops. When a barrister refers to a page, there’s a pause as attendees navigate to the correct section with a flurry of clicking and typing.
A trial bundle made with BundleDocs looks like a list of pdf sheets. The bundle is indexed, so you can refer to the index to know what you are looking at, but it does not use the original source format. So, for example, you can look at an Excel data sheet, but you cannot interact with it such as clicking on a cell to see what formula has produced the figure, or flick through the Excel pages within the document. In fact, for an Excel document, this would usually be sent separately and in addition to the bundle for this reason. There is usually very little issue using BundleDocs – it is routinely used, however where the evidence is of a particularly technical nature, it may prove limiting.
Why EPE was used
Much of the evidence in this matter relied on dozens of Excel spreadsheets containing monthly insurance commission payments, as such, it was advantageous to both parties to use an EPE provider during the trial. In this case, we sought the assistance of OPUS2. This decision was subsequently confirmed at the case management hearing by the judge.
The end goal was that as each barrister was speaking, they would be able to refer to part of the bundle and the referenced section would instantly appear on screens for each party and the judge. The document would be in its original source format, so taking Excel as the example again, the barrister could instruct the OPUS2 operator, who was situated in the courtroom, to click on a certain cell or navigate around the document in real-time.
Benefits of OPUS2
In addition to the in-court functionality, we also benefited from a live transcript and OPUS2 platform collaboration. The legal teams agreed which documents were to be admitted to the OPUS2 platform to be included in the trial bundle – this was a mixture of emails, contracts, invoices and other documentation. Barristers were able to put virtual sticky notes on the documents to ask us or the client for additional detail, search documentation for key words, highlight passages, zoom in on parts of the documents and use the AI function to summarise a document. This saved numerous emails back and forth between our legal team and Counsel, and ensured the queries throughout the bundle were not missed.
An OPUS2 transcriber was listening to the trial remotely, and a live transcript of the case was being typed and visible on other screens in the court. The benefits here were that the legal teams were not pre-occupied taking detailed notes throughout and could focus on supporting Counsel, and that Counsel were able to refer back to a passage of questioning and have the previous answers in front of them, so there was no argument as to what exactly had been said.
In our experience, OPUS2’s EPE worked seamlessly throughout the build-up and the trial days themselves. The technology allowed each party to prepare effectively, and run through their evidence in a streamlined, coherent manner.
Practical Considerations
In this case, both parties contributed to the trial bundles, and for each batch of documents uploaded a ‘load file’ also had to be generated and each party had to agree to the upload before OPUS2 would add the documents to the bundle. This was different to the normal course of proceedings where the claimant party would have responsibility for the bundle without the need for producing load files.
The package we used, for the four trial days, access for both parties and judge, and live transcription was c£20k. Though a costly addition, EPE proved invaluable in managing the complexity of the evidence.
We needed to apply for the courts permission to use EPE and also had to account for the physical set up of the technology, fortunately the courtroom was empty the day before and the judge had a reading day which coincided, but there is certainly the possibility of logistical clashes.
Conclusion
Using EPE significantly enhanced the efficiency and clarity of trial proceedings in this case. By enabling real-time document navigation, interactive use of complex data sets, and easy collaboration between legal teams and Counsel, EPE proved to be a useful tool in managing technical evidence. While it requires additional planning, cost, and court approval, its benefits in complex litigation make it a worthwhile consideration for future trials.
From a trainee perspective, experiencing both traditional bundling and EPE is valuable for your development and understanding of trial preparation and courtroom dynamics, especially in a High Court setting. Using OPUS2 allowed for more informal collaboration with Counsel during the lead-up to trial, something that’s often filtered through draft correspondence or intermediated by the matter partner or lawyer. Being directly involved in the coordination and document management gave me a hands-on role, and an insight into how technology is being incorporated into modern litigation practice.