Deemsters’ Warning on Excessive Written Material

A full house in Court Number 3, on 4th November 2025, heard Deemster Corlett and Acting Deemster Gough outline the Court’s concerns as to commercial litigation conduct. The seminar, Managing Excessive Material in Commercial Litigation, noted that the Court increasingly faced: “large volumes of unnecessary material in complex commercial cases”. Several concerns were identified: 

• “Excessive court time and judicial resources are spent on peripheral matters (e.g., costs disputes).
• Proliferation of verbose documents: letters, witness statements, skeleton arguments and submissions.
• Difficulty for judges to identify essential issues (“cannot see the wood for the trees”).
• Costs often disproportionate to the size and nature of the claim.
• Unnecessary and extensive use of external counsel.”

Document presentation / bundles

Documents were “often not chronological” and there was “duplication across bundles”. In future, there would be judicial endorsement of stricter bundle limits (“eg., 350 pages max, one lever-arch file”) and only “documents necessary for the hearing should be included”. 

Skeleton arguments

Skeletons should “summarise key points concisely”; they were: “not intended to replace or replicate oral advocacy” (see Pentera Trustees Ltd v Old Mutual International Isle of Man Ltd (ORD 2012/38) (30.04.15) (at § 62)). Strict page limits on skeletons should be enforced “every time”.

Witness statements

These were too often used “by lawyers” (“particularly… where there are instructing solicitors”) “for argument rather than factual evidence”. Reference was made to PD 01/24 on Trial Witness Statements in Civil Division Cases. 

Citation of authorities

Citing excessive and unnecessary case law risked lengthening hearings, higher costs, and obscuring legal principles. Practitioners were urged to: “[c]ite only leading authorities (preferably appellate)”; “[u]se official law reports or Manx Law Reports where available”; and to “[a]void unreported and repetitive cases”. “If not necessary to cite an authority then it is necessary not to cite it”.

Procedural discipline

“Endless interlocutory skirmishes” were to be discouraged. Judges would emphasise the importance of early trial dates and firmly adhering to timetables, and would limit skeletons, witness statements, expert reports and bundle size.

Key judicial warnings

The key warnings were that the Courts risked being: “”suffocated” by excessive written material to the detriment of justice”. Excessive paperwork increased costs and delay: “with no improvement in outcomes”. There was an opportunity to enforce existing Rules to: “prevent further decline”. 

Experts

Thought should be given to: “a single court appointed expert or a single expert appointed by the parties with a defined brief”.

Inter-party relations

It was noted “just how aggressive the parties are to each other” in correspondence. It was “usually unnecessary for the court to see the tedious emails batted back and forth between the parties”. If necessary (on costs), it could be appended to a short witness statement. The Court also expected: “matters which are capable of reasonable agreement between the parties (such as the settling of the finite terms of orders”) to be agreed”. It was not acceptable to expect the court to resolve: “almost every aspect, position, and proposed procedural step”. 

Concluding messages

Deemster Corlett and Acting Deemster Gough concluded: “less is more”; “[j]udicial enforcement of limits is essential”; “Practitioners must take responsibility for streamlining litigation”; “Where the court considers it has been overburdened with unnecessary and lengthy material, unnecessary arguments and documents then, even if the party in default wins the case and would ordinarily be entitled to costs those costs are likely to be disallowed or dramatically reduced…”.

Wasted costs orders: “may be more in evidence going forward”.