The judge had refused a father’s application to be assisted by a McKenzie friend (a Dr Pelling) on the ground that, having listened to and observed the proposed McKenzie friend, he felt that, with the father on his own, the hearing would be fairer, as well as less adversarial and legalistic.
Held: The court allowed the father’s appeal.
Thorpe LJ said: the presumption in favour of permitting a McKenzie friend was a strong one. The argument in the court below had necessarily been an adversarial and legalistic one and, since it was unusual for a respondent to oppose an application for McKenzie assistance, as the mother had done vehemently, it was possible that she had contributed to the adversariality.
Judges:
Thorpe LJ
Citations:
[2002] 1 FLR 39, [2001] EWCA Civ 1444
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Litigation Practice
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.227953
