Court of Appeal Bundle Requirements (CoA Civil Guide 2025 + PD 52C)
The Court of Appeal accepts hyperlinks or bookmarks — the Guide says "as appropriate", which is looser than the Administrative Court's mandatory hyperlinked index. The distinctive rules are the 350-page cap on supplementary bundles and the 50 megabyte split threshold, which allows up to ten documents of that size.
Governing document
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) · June 2025
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025)
Also relevant: CPR Practice Direction 52C — Appeals to the Court of Appeal (current as at 15 August 2026)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025)
Also relevant: CPR Practice Direction 52C — Appeals to the Court of Appeal (current as at 15 August 2026)
Checked against the published source on 15 August 2026.
The numbers, in one place
| Page limit | 350 pages (supplementary bundle) The 350-page cap is on the SUPPLEMENTARY bundle (PD 52C para 27(11)), not on the core appeal bundle. Permission is required to exceed it. |
| File size | 50MB Over 50MB the bundle may be split into up to ten documents of that size, each with its own hyperlinks or bookmarks. The Guide's 50MB figure is guide-level practice; CPR PD 5C sets a 100MB filing cap for electronic working. |
| Pagination | Arabic, continuous from page 1 Hard-copy bundles must be on single-sided paper (Guide 3.32(f)) — the opposite of the CPR PD 32 double-sided default. |
| Font | 12 point minimum |
Pick your court, pick your PDF. The file is read in your browser and never leaves your device. Free verdict plus your first three issues; the full report is £4.99.
Every rule, in the source's own words
Quotations below are verbatim. Where a rule is best practice carried from another regime rather than a requirement of the governing document, it says so in the row.
| Requirement | What the rule actually says | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| One PDF document must |
“Bundles filed electronically must be formatted as one PDF document with hyperlinks or bookmarks, as appropriate, for each document and with section headings within the document.” | CoA Guide 2025 para 3.31 Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025) |
| Hyperlinks or bookmarks for each document must |
“with hyperlinks or bookmarks, as appropriate, for each document and with section headings within the document” Either satisfies the rule here. Do not import the Administrative Court's mandatory-hyperlink rule into a Court of Appeal bundle. |
CoA Guide 2025 para 3.31 Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025) |
| OCR searchable must |
“All PDF documents must be OCR searchable.” | CoA Guide 2025 para 3.31 Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025) |
| 50 megabyte split threshold should |
“If the size of the bundle exceeds 50 megabytes, it can be divided into up to 10 documents of that size, each bearing hyperlinks or bookmarks, as appropriate.” Permissive, not prohibitive: exceeding 50MB is not itself a breach, it triggers the option to split. |
CoA Guide 2025 para 3.31 Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025) |
| Supplementary bundle 350 pages must |
“Any supplementary bundle should not exceed 350 pages” | CoA Guide 2025 paras 3.29-3.30; PD 52C para 27(11) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025) |
| Index hyperlinked to each tab should |
“in electronic bundles the index should be hyperlinked to each tab” | PD 52C CPR Practice Direction 52C — Appeals to the Court of Appeal (current as at 15 August 2026) |
| Paginated with an index referring to page numbers should |
“be paginated (page numbering must not reduce the font size of any document below 12 points); contain an index at the front referring to relevant page numbers” | CoA Guide 2025 para 3.32(b)-(c) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025) |
| Readable orientation should |
“Any page that has been created in landscape orientation should appear in that orientation so that it can be read from left to right. No page should appear upside down.” | General guidance (29 Nov 2021), applied to civil courts General guidance on electronic court bundles (29 November 2021) |
| Default view 100% should |
“The default view for all pages should be 100%.” | General guidance (29 Nov 2021), applied to civil courts General guidance on electronic court bundles (29 November 2021) |
| Hard copies single-sided check yourself |
“be on single-sided paper” This conflicts with the general double-sided expectation elsewhere in civil practice. It applies to the paper copy, not the PDF. |
CoA Guide 2025 para 3.32(f) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Guide 2025 (June 2025) |
Where this court differs from the others
This is the part that causes wasted work: a bundle built correctly for one court can breach the rules of another. Applying the wrong court's rulebook is the most common way a compliant bundle gets called non-compliant.
Index links
| Family (PD27A) | Index entries must be "added to" the indexed document. Hyperlinking is best practice carried from other regimes, not an express PD27A requirement. |
| Administrative Court, King's Bench (10.21) | Hyperlinked index is mandatory. |
| Court of Appeal | Hyperlinks OR bookmarks, "as appropriate". |
| Chancery, Commercial | Hyperlinked "if possible". |
| SEND Tribunal | Hyperlinks "ideally". |
| Employment Tribunal | Index hyperlinked at the front, OR supplied as a separate PDF. |
Pagination
| Financial remedy | Arabic, continuous, and the computer numbering must match the PDF page labels. |
| Family, not financial remedy | Bates numbering: A1, A2 … B1, B2 … by section. |
| Employment Tribunal, SEND Tribunal | Sequential Arabic from 1. Sections must NOT be separately numbered. |
| Chancery, Commercial | Where a bundle is split across files, pagination begins afresh in each file. |
| Administrative Court, King's Bench | First page of the PDF is page 1, index pages included. |
Bookmark density
| Everywhere except the Employment Tribunal | All significant documents and all sections. |
| Employment Tribunal | Significant documents only — "Do not bookmark every single document". |
Resolution
| Nearly all of the regimes on this page | Not greater than 300 dpi — a ceiling only. |
| Administrative Court, King's Bench (10.21) | About 200 to 300 dpi — a floor as well as a ceiling. |
Page and size caps
| Family, financial remedy | 350 pages, court permission to exceed. In financial remedy, position statements and composite documents do not count towards it. |
| Court of Appeal | 350 pages on the supplementary bundle; 50MB split threshold. |
| Administrative Court, criminal | 20mb, with a core bundle above it. Core bundle required over 400 pages (PD 54A 16). |
| SEND Tribunal | Core bundle 100 pages; EHC plan part 150; further caps by appeal type. |
| Chancery, Commercial, King's Bench | No page cap. |
What actually happened when bundles went wrong
Go Capital Ltd v Phull [2020] EWHC 1235 (Ch) — Judicial criticism of the bundle
The defect list that still gets cited: no selectable text, no bookmarks, multiple competing page numbers, missing pages, and two indexes that were not hyperlinked.
Being straight about this: No reported case imposes wasted costs solely for bundle defects. The only money outcome we can point to is Y v X (Costs) [2026] EWFC 35 (B), where bundle preparation fees were disallowed. None of these outcomes is a fine. Courts do not fine parties for bundle format. Every case above pre-dates the Practice Direction 27A that came into force on 2 March 2026. As at 15 August 2026 there is no reported judgment under the new PD27A. The underlying duties are materially similar, but nobody can yet cite a decision on the new wording.
What we cannot tell you
- No Civil Procedure Rule anywhere mandates bookmarks, OCR or hyperlinks in an electronic civil bundle. Those requirements come from judicial guidance and court guides, which a judge may vary in your case.
- The enacted PD27A says index entries must be "added to" the indexed document, not "hyperlinked to". We treat hyperlinking as best practice for family bundles and label it as such. Published commentary usually says "hyperlinked" because it is quoting the 2021 guidance, which no longer applies to family proceedings.
- PD27A 4.8 promises further HMCTS guidance on bundles. As at 15 August 2026 it has not been published.
- The 50MB figure in the Court of Appeal and King's Bench guides descends from the revoked PD 51O. Treat it as guide-level practice, not law. CPR PD 5C sets a 100MB electronic filing cap and carves bundles out of the pilot.
- Employment Tribunal Presidential Guidance is something a tribunal must have regard to. It does not bind in the way a practice direction does.
- This tool checks the format of a PDF. It cannot tell you whether a document belongs in the bundle, whether a bookmark description is good enough, or whether your case is ready. Those are judgement calls and we report them as such.
Pick your court, pick your PDF. The file is read in your browser and never leaves your device. Free verdict plus your first three issues; the full report is £4.99.
Other courts
FamilyFPR Practice Direction 27AFinancial remedyFPR Practice Direction 27AAdministrative CourtAdministrative CourtChancery / CommercialChancery Guide 2022 (Business and Property Courts)King's BenchThe King's Bench Guide 2025Employment TribunalPresidential GuidanceSEND TribunalPractice Direction No 1 of 2025CriminalCriminal Practice Directions 2023, Part 12General civilGeneral guidance on electronic court bundles
This is a format check against published court rules. It is not legal advice, it does not tell you whether your case is ready, and no outcome is guaranteed. The rules are subject to any direction a judge gives in your own case. Rules and guides are updated by the courts without notice; this page records the position as at 15 August 2026 and links to every source so you can check it yourself.