Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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