Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from