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 generally 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 report, then the balance of convenience favours replacing each of the 10 copies of the 200 page report with a note giving the reference of the report so that the user of the bundle can locate a single copy where it is in chronological position in its won 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 referring documents, such as witness statements, use one reference, such a JJS27 and some 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 references 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 better solution, in these circumstances, is to select the best copy of the document and add the references of the other copies to it and then remove the other copies. The copy of the document which has been selected to be in the bundle will usually be the clearest copy but see here for a more detailed discussion about the copy to select.
To avoid duplication you can do one of the following (or a combination of them):-
At the point where you are about to load a document copy 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, or
Load documents and immediately check for duplicates - you might want to do this if your document management system has a facility which can automatically check for duplicate documents but only once the documents are loaded. Different systems may check for duplicates in slightly different ways. Bundledocs, for example, checks 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 Litigation Ready would detect a duplicate in this situation because it compares OCRed text. So 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 dirt 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. When you have identified a duplicate you can move it to a special folder named e.g. Duplicates - exclude from final bundle leaving only one copy of each document in a normal "included" folder. This allows you to double-check it later if any query should arise as to whether it really is a true duplicate. Alternatively you could simply delete the duplicate from your document management system.
Having previously loaded document copies without initially checking for duplicates, you might, later on, go through and check for duplicates, moving any duplicates found to a special folder named e.g. Duplicates - exclude from final bundle and leaving only one copy of each document in a normal "included" folder. Alternatively you could simply delete the duplicate from your document management system.
Whichever approach you take you need to ensure that references are maintained, so, for example if exhibited documents have the exhibit mark in their filename, or in another field, then when omitting a duplicate you need to ensure that the exhibit mark of the omitted duplicate is added to the filename/other field of the copy which remains :-
Whenever you take a decision to not load a duplicate, add its exhibit mark to the copy which is already loaded
Whenever you take a decision to exclude a duplicate which is already loaded, by moving it to a Duplicates - exclude from final bundle folder (or by deleting it), add its exhibit mark to the copy which is to remain included.
Exactly how to add exhibit marks 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. You can then tap on the document which is to remain, tap its edit symbol and paste that exhibit mark next to its existing one.
The occasion when you are dealing with duplicates is an opportunity to ensure that exhibit marks and other references are established such that it will be possible, in the final bundle, for a user of the bundle to easily look up referred-to documents as they read through each statement referring to them. 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 (though at the time of writing - October 2025 - Litigation Ready had expressed an intention to do so in the future) so if hyperlinks are to be added hyperlinks need to be added using PDF software.
If you do detect a duplicate and decide that one copy should be removed, how do you decide which copy to keep?
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 use 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 in e.g. document name
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 (unlabelled) ASC12 Not included in bundle
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 (unlabelled) RSC2 RSC2 ASC12 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 (and be identified as the actual exhibit by having its document name prefixed by the exhibit mark) positioned immediately after the statement. The better quality copy would also be included in the appropriate position elsewhere.
Copy of Document How referred to in statement Exhibit mark in document name Comment
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 ASC12 Not included in bundle
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 R5 R5 ASC12 HGT31
JJS23 Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 JJS23 JJS23 poor quality labelled JJS23
Photo IMG_1234 24 Aug 2024 HGT31 Not included in bundle labelled HGT31
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 and be identified as that exhibit. The enlarged exhibited copy would be positioned immediately after the statement. If an unenlarged copy is also exhibited by the witness, that copy would also be positioned just after the statement. A good quality copy of the same photo would also be included in the appropriate position elsewhere - normally A4 size is sufficient (and of course in the eBundle PDF the reader can zoom in at will).
A witness might take a copy of a photo or plan and make a mark on it such as an arrow pointing to some feature that they are going to refer to in their statement, and exhibit that marked copy. They may or may not also exhibit the unmarked photo or plan. The marked copy (identified as the exhibit) should be placed immediately after the statement (as an exception to the usual rule). If an unmarked copy is exhibited then that should be placed next to the marked copy (and be identified as an exhibit). Whether or not the unmarked copy is exhibited by that witness, the best quality unmarked copy should also be added in the normal chronological position.
At the disclosure of documents stage native copies of JPGs and other computer documents are typically exchanged containing metadata, and then, or later, an image-and-metadata PDF "print" showing both the image and relevant items of metadata may be produced by a party for those photos 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).
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 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 October 2025 Disclaimer