What the revised PD27A means for family court bundle preparation
Miles Osborne, director of customer success, global, at Bundledocs explores how SME law firms can implement good document bundling, as requirements around how firms are expected to prepare and lodge family court bundles shift
There has always been a practical tension in family law between preparing court bundles quickly and preparing them well.
Family matters move quickly. Documents change, input is needed from multiple parties, and bundle preparation often happens under pressure.
The revised Practice Direction 27A (PD27A) brings that process into sharper focus. The updates are not simply technical; they reflect a wider shift towards more consistent, structured and digital-first documentation in family proceedings.
For SME law firms, this is significant. The challenge is not only complying with PD27A, but building bundle preparation into workflows that support accuracy without slowing work down.
Where bundle preparation starts to break down
Bundle preparation can become difficult when the process relies too heavily on manual steps.
A typical example is pagination. A bundle may be assembled, numbered and indexed, only for a late change to happen. The index then needs to be updated, page references checked and versions cross-checked.
The same issue applies to document ordering, duplicate material and navigation. Each task may seem manageable on its own, but together they create scope for delay, inconsistency and error.
The revised PD27A direction sets out expectations around the preparation of family court bundles, including the general position that bundles should be in e-bundle form unless the court considers there to be exceptional circumstances. It also places emphasis on relevance: bundles should contain the documents needed for the hearing, rather than every document generated during the matter.
This creates a more disciplined environment for bundle preparation. It is no longer enough for a bundle to be complete. It needs to be proportionate, navigable and useful.
Earlier preparation, not just better presentation
One of the practical effects of the revised PD27A is that bundle preparation is likely to become more front-loaded.
If bundles need to be ready earlier in the process, firms cannot rely on correcting issues at the final stage. Decisions about what should be included, how documents should be ordered and who is responsible for final checks need to happen sooner.
This creates a different kind of pressure. It is not just about having someone available to compile the bundle, but having a process that supports earlier decision-making, clearer ownership and more consistent review.
For many family law teams, that may require a change in how they think about bundles. Rather than being treated as a closing task, bundle preparation should be treated as an active part of matter management.
Why digital usability is now part of compliance
The revised PD27A sits within a wider move towards digital working in the family justice system. Electronic bundles are now part of the expected infrastructure of family proceedings.
Documents need to be structured in a way that supports the hearing rather than complicating it. This is particularly important in proceedings where bundles may need to be updated incrementally as a matter progresses. In that context, careful pagination can help preserve references and reduce disruption when new material is added. The more a bundle changes, the more important it becomes to maintain a reliable structure.
Good bundle preparation is therefore not just about presentation. It affects how efficiently information can be understood and used.
The pressure on SME firms
For many firms, the challenge is not understanding the importance of accurate bundles, but producing them consistently under pressure.
Manual processes may work when matters are straightforward, but family law rarely operates in ideal conditions. Documents arrive late, instructions change and amendments may be needed close to a hearing.
Firms therefore need processes that can absorb change without creating confusion. Responsibilities, version control and final checks all need to be clear.
The consequences of getting this wrong can be significant, from delay to wasted costs. Even where formal sanctions do not arise, a poorly prepared bundle creates avoidable pressure for lawyers, clients and the court.
Control without unnecessary friction
There is sometimes an assumption that stronger control slows work down. In bundle preparation, the opposite should be true.
Clearer workflows can reduce repeated checking, duplicated documents and last-minute corrections. Consistent templates, naming conventions and review steps help teams move more confidently from document collection to final filing.
The aim is not more process, but better-structured process: one that keeps the authoritative version clear, supports the right contributors and ensures the final bundle is accurate, accessible and court-ready.
Bundle preparation as an operational capability
The revised PD27A is a reminder that court bundles are not simply an administrative output. They are part of how legal work is delivered.
For SME firms, this means reviewing who gathers documents, who decides what is included, who checks indexing and pagination, and who confirms the final version is ready to file and serve.
Digital usability should be built in from the beginning. Searchability, pagination, indexing and navigation should be treated as part of the bundle’s structure, not a final-stage task.
Compliance, efficiency and digital readiness are becoming increasingly connected. The firms that respond best will be those with clear processes, stronger document control and the ability to prepare court-ready bundles without adding unnecessary friction.
