Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles

FAMILY PROCEEDINGS: In the Matter of the Children of Mr O'Connell, Mr Whelan and Mr Watson [2005] EWCA Civ 759

Sep 29, 2018, 17:04 PM
Slug : in-the-matter-of-the-children-of-mr-o-connell-mr-whelan-and-mr-watson-2005-ewca-civ-759
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 22, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85551

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe and Wall LJJ; 22 June 2005) [2005] 2 FLR 967

The rationale for allowing a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend is to further the interests of justice. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Art 6 is engaged in any application by a litigant in person to be assisted by a McKenzie friend. There is a strong presumption in favour of a McKenzie friend and a request should only be refused with good reason. The litigants intelligence, ability to utilise the facts and documents, the nature of a directions or case management hearing, confidentiality of proceedings and sensitivity of information were not compelling reasons themselves to refuse assistance. Where the court refuses to allow a McKenzie friend this should be fully explained to the litigant and would-be McKenzie friend. The proposed McKenzie friend should not be excluded from the hearing of the application. Where the court has decided to allow a litigant in person a McKenzie friend there is no reason in principle why documents cannot be disclosed to the McKenzie friend but the McKenzie friend should not use the papers for any other purpose without the court's approval. It was not contempt of court to show documentation to, or seek advice from a proposed McKenzie friend prior to any application for assistance provided the proposed McKenzie friend understood the information was not to be disclosed. There is no objection in principle to disclosure of court documents to a public authority with proper interest in the subject matter. Such an authority was not the public at large or any sector of the public within the meaning of the Children Act 1989, s 97(2) as amended.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from