Special Circumstances to appoint McKenzie Friend
An application was made to have a nominated person appointed as McKenzie friend and as advocate for the claimant. The claimant’s narrow boat had been seized by the defendant for non payment of licence fees and for not having a Pleasure Boat Certificate. The Trust objected not to the use of a McKenzire Friend but to the particular person proposed, saying that he had been subject to judicial criticism in an earlier case for an alleged disregard of the costs of litigation, with outstanding costs orders unpaid against him.
Held: It was clear that the claimant needed assistance, and that in this particular case such assistance should extend to advocacy. However, the claimant should retain conduct of the case: ‘There is a fine line between providing assistance, and advocacy assistance on the one hand and conducting the litigation on the other hand. Undoubtedly Mr Moore has played a major role in this claim to date. In practice, in view of the density of the subject matter, it is inevitable that Mr Ravenscroft will need to refer documents such as the statements of case and the witness statements to a McKenzie Friend. Nevertheless, in my judgement it is right that Mr Ravenscroft should retain conduct of the claim such that he remains the point of contact with whom the CRT will deal. It is a matter for him to decide upon the extent of which he seeks assistance and it should not be assumed automatically that a McKenzie Friend will deal with everything on his behalf.’
As to the objection to the choice of friend, it was clear that much of the case presentation had benefitted from his involvement, that he was not setting out to be a rofessional McKenzie friend, and that, having got this far, it would be wring not to approve his involvement.
Marsh CM
[2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Family Housing Association (Manchester) Ltd v Michael Hyde and Partners CA 1993
The Plaintiffs had filed evidence of the contents of without prejudice negotiations in order to resist an application by the Defendants to strike out the action for want of prosecution. The question was whether they were entitled to rely on such . .
Cited – Somatra Limited v Sinclair Roche and Temperley (a Firm) etc CA 26-Jul-2000
In an action between clients and their solicitors, the solicitors produced at an interlocutory hearing evidence derived from without prejudice discussions. The claimants applied for disclosure of all such documents, but this was rejected on the . .
Cited – Moore v British Waterways Board ChD 10-Feb-2012
The claimant said that the defendant did not have the powers it claimed in serving notices requiring him to remove boats from a section of the Grand Union Canal.
Held: The respondent did have the power under section 8 of the 1983 Act. As a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.569653
