From Monday 2 March 2026, the Family Court is introducing the most significant overhaul of case‑preparation rules in years. A new Practice Direction 27A (PD27A) replaces the old guidance on court bundles and applies across all family proceedings – children cases, financial remedies, and public law alike.
If you are involved in family court proceedings, this matters. These rules affect what documents are prepared, how long they can be, when they must be filed, and what happens if parties get it wrong. For lawyers, PD27A will quickly become a day‑to‑day reference point. For clients, it explains why courts are now insisting on tighter, earlier and more disciplined preparation.
What is changing?
In short: less paper, earlier preparation, and stricter enforcement.
The new PD27A is described by the judiciary as “universal”. It is designed to impose consistency across the Family Court and Family Division, and it carries explicit sanctions for non‑compliance – including hearings being removed from the list and adverse or wasted costs orders.
There is also a small technical change to the appeal rules (FPR r.30.3) coming into force on the same day, but that affects appeal mechanics rather than day‑to‑day case preparation. The real shift is PD27A.
1.Who is responsible for preparing the bundle?
The starting point is simple:
- The applicant prepares the bundle.
- If there are cross‑applications, responsibility falls on the party who issued first.
- If the applicant is a litigant in person and a respondent has a lawyer, the represented respondent must prepare the bundle.
Only in rare cases – where everyone is unrepresented and genuinely unable to compile a bundle – may the court direct HMCTS to do so. Even then, HMCTS‑prepared bundles are treated as an exception, not the norm.
2.Electronic bundles are now the default
PD27A makes clear that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, court bundles should be electronic.
Paper bundles may still be required if:
- the court directs one for a judge, witness or litigant in person;
- live evidence is realistically expected and suitable technology is not available.
But the direction of travel is clear: e‑bundles first, paper only if justified.
What can – and cannot – go into a bundle
One of the strongest themes in the new PD is discipline.
Bundles must contain only documents that are relevant and necessary for the specific hearing. PD27A now expressly states that certain materials must not be included unless the court orders otherwise, including:
- general correspondence and emails;
- social media messages and voice notes;
- bank statements and contact notes;
- foster carer logs and entire social services files;
- photographs.
This is a cultural shift. The days of “everything just in case” bundles are over.
If a party wants the bundle to be in Welsh, that must be flagged in advance of the first hearing so the court can give directions.
Page limits: shorter, sharper documents
PD27A imposes clear page limits unless the court directs otherwise. Examples include:
- Case summary: 6 pages
- Statement of issues: 2 pages
- Chronology: 10 pages
- Witness statements: 25 pages
- Expert reports: 40 pages, including a 4‑page executive summary
Authorities must go in a separate bundle, normally capped at 10 authorities, and head‑noted reports must be used instead of transcripts where available. Hyperlinks are encouraged, particularly where a litigant in person is involved.
3.Position statements and skeleton arguments
Financial remedy cases
In financial remedy proceedings, PD27A now treats “position statements” broadly – they include what lawyers would traditionally call skeleton arguments.
Strict length limits apply depending on the hearing:
- First appointment: 6 pages
- Interim hearings: 8 pages
- FDR: 12 pages
- Final hearing: 15 pages
Each hearing requires a fresh position statement. These documents must define the issues, cross‑refer to the bundle, and must not introduce new evidence or exhibits. They must also explain what attempts at negotiation or non‑court dispute resolution have taken place.
High Court financial remedy cases remain subject to the separate guidance on the efficient conduct of those hearings.
All other family proceedings
In children and public law cases, position statements should ordinarily not exceed 3 pages. Skeleton arguments remain separate documents where needed. Public law cases must use the standardised templates now mandated by the court.
4.Mandatory preliminary documents
PD27A now prescribes what must be filed before hearings.
Financial remedy cases
The bundle must include, among other things:
- ES1 – a composite case summary;
- ES2 – a composite schedule of assets and income;
- any FM5 (non‑court dispute resolution statement);
- a composite chronology;
- each party’s position statement;
- a list of essential reading;
- for hearings of two hours or more, a realistic hearing timetable, allowing proper reading and judgment time.
Other proceedings (including children cases)
Required documents include:
- a (usually agreed) case summary and statement of issues;
- position statements;
- any FM5;
- skeleton arguments where appropriate;
- an agreed chronology and reading list;
- a hearing timetable for contested or final hearings.
5.Earlier deadlines: the new default timetable
Unless the court orders otherwise:
- Parties must try to agree bundle contents at least 7 working days before the hearing.
- The bundle must be filed and served no later than 5 working days before the hearing.
- Any outstanding preliminary documents must be filed by 11:00 a.m. on the working day before the hearing.
Once filed, the bundle cannot be changed without permission. If extra documents are allowed, they must be provided separately and the revised bundle re‑filed.
This is a meaningful shift from the old PD27A and requires cases to be organised earlier than many practitioners – and clients – are used to.
6.Technical standards (yes, they matter)
The new PD is unusually detailed about format:
- PDF e‑bundles only;
- default 350‑page limit unless permission is granted;
- proper pagination, indexing and bookmarking;
- OCR‑enabled text;
- accessibility‑conscious fonts and spacing;
- file optimisation to avoid oversized uploads.
Judges will see immediately if these standards are not met.
7.What happens if parties ignore the rules?
PD27A could not be clearer:
“Failure to comply with any part of this practice direction may result in the court removing the case from the list… and may also result in an adverse costs order or a wasted costs order.”
This is not window‑dressing. The court is being given explicit permission to enforce compliance.
8.Why this matters in practice
For clients, PD27A explains why lawyers are now insisting on:
- tighter document control;
- earlier drafting and decision‑making;
- fewer but more focused documents;
- clearer explanations of settlement efforts.
For practitioners, it marks a shift towards auditable, judge‑facing case preparation, with little tolerance for over‑lawyering or last‑minute chaos.
The message from the court is simple: prepare earlier, prepare better, and keep it proportionate.
If you are involved in family proceedings and would like advice on how these changes affect your case, or what the court will now expect, feel free to get in touch.
