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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
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...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Re N; Re Children Act 1989, s 8; A v G [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : re-n-re-children-act-1989-s-8-a-v-g-2008-ewhc-2042-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 20, 2008, 09:40 AM
Article ID : 87197

(Family Division; Munby J; 20 August 2008)

A McKenzie friend did not have a right of audience and the court's discretion to grant a McKenzie friend a right of audience was to be granted 'only . . . for good reason' and in the light of and bearing in mind the 'general objective' set out in Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s 17(1) and the 'general principle' set out in s 17(3). Moreover, the court should be 'very slow' to grant a McKenzie friend a right of audience. However, that did not mean that, as a general principle, a right of audience could be granted only in 'exceptional circumstances'. All would depend on the circumstances. The overriding objective was that the courts should do justice. The court had to bear in mind that legal aid was not as readily available as readily as it had been in the past. There would be occasions when the grant of rights of audience to a McKenzie friend would be of advantage to the court in ensuring the litigant in person received a fair hearing, and it would sometimes be essential if justice were to be done and, equally importantly, perceived by the litigant in person as having been done.

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