A father appealed a refual of consent for him to be allowed assistance from a McKenzie Friend.
Held: He should have been allowed assistance on the contact and other applications. It was ‘a matter of regret’ that the father had been denied the assistance of a McKenzie friend and that no apparent explanation for the denial had been put forward. Ward LJ: ‘The judge has the father appearing in person. There is a ground of appeal before us complaining of having been denied a McKenzie friend. It emerged from the submissions . . . that the refusal occurred at an earlier hearing and may or may not have been influenced in part by the personality of that particular McKenzie friend. The father simply does not know. He feels the burning injustice of having been besieged with paper and coping with the difficulty of the management of that paper and the conduct of the litigation. I have considerable sympathy with him . It is always difficult, and the more emotive and important the issue to the litigant, often the more useful it is to have the restraining influence of a McKenzie friend. The value was demonstrated in this court when we asked for assistance as to a certain passage of evidence to which the father had made reference. That was left to the gentleman here, who was not the gentleman against whom any possible objection could have been taken in July 1997. The answer was forthcoming. It showed the virtue of how the McKenzie friend is to operate. It is therefore a matter of regret that the father was denied that assistance. The judge would not have had referred to him a decision of this court given by me in Re H (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie Friend) (1997… 2 FLR 423. Provided that the McKenzie friend acts with restraint, he is often a useful assistant to the conduct of litigation’.’
Judges:
Ward LJ, Roch LJ
Citations:
[1999] 1 FLR 75
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
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: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.227952