“26. Finally, by way of postscript, it is a matter of considerable regret that the practice direction on the citation of authorities at  1 WLR 780 (referred to in PD 52C paragraph 29(2)) has been almost wholly ignored. We were supplied with print outs and handed down transcripts of authorities that have been reported in the official law reports (e.g. Bristol & West BS v Mothew  Ch 1; A-G v Blake  1 AC 268; Stein v Blake (No 2)  1 All ER 724). Unreported cases were cited for propositions that could be found in reported ones. The whole of my gargantuan judgment in Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding  EWHC 1638 (Ch);  WTLR 835 (which runs to 494 pages) was copied, even though only a few pages were of any conceivable relevance to the issues on the appeal. Contrary to PD 52C paragraph 29 (2) many of the authorities were supplied without marking the relevant passages.
27. Judges of this court have limited time for pre-reading in advance of an appeal. Adherence to the practice directions means that that limited time can be more productively spent. Parties can expect that the cost of preparing a non-compliant bundle of authorities is at risk of being disallowed.”