Mckenzie Friend - Representing a litigant in person

Hi info from law site:

What McKenzie Friends may not do

MFs may not: i) act as the litigants’ agent in relation to the proceedings; ii) manage litigants’ cases outside court, for example by signing court documents; or iii) address the court, make oral submissions or examine witnesses.

The Guidance also provides that the Court may refuse to allow a party to be represented by a McKenzie Friend:

A litigant may be denied the assistance of a MF because its provision might undermine or has undermined the efficient administration of justice. Examples of circumstances where this might arise are: i) the assistance is being provided for an improper purpose; ii) the assistance is unreasonable in nature or degree; iii) the MF is subject to a civil proceedings order or a civil restraint order; iv) the MF is using the litigant as a puppet; v) the MF is directly or indirectly conducting the litigation; vi) the court is not satisfied that the MF fully understands the duty of confidentiality.

The Guidance emphasises that a McKenzie Friend does not have the right to conduct the litigation or, unless specifically granted by the court, rights of audience (the right to present the case orally in court):

MFs do not have a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation. It is a criminal offence to exercise rights of audience or to conduct litigation unless properly qualified and authorised to do so by an appropriate regulatory body or, in the case of an otherwise unqualified or unauthorised individual (i.e., a lay individual including a MF), the court grants such rights on a case-by-case basis. Courts should be slow to grant any application from a litigant for a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation to any lay person, including a MF. This is because a person exercising such rights must ordinarily be properly trained, be under professional discipline (including an obligation to insure against liability for negligence) and be subject to an overriding duty to the court. These requirements are necessary for the protection of all parties to litigation and are essential to the proper administration of justice.

@bill337 

Hi Bill337

Many thanks for your advice, it is very much appreciated. Needless to say, I issued the joint letters to the SJEs and the MF went apoplectic. I have replied to her outlining where she is 'significantly' overstepping the mark when it comes to her role as a MF.....lets she what type of reply/action that results in.

I fully appreciate the role of a MF, but in instances like this the individual is not acting in her 'friends' best interest and certainly not in the best interests of reaching an amicable/timely divorce settlement. The allegations the MF (and ex wife) have made over the past 12 months have been horrendous, and all false, but they have done this to frustrate the legal process. I have not seen my child in over a year, and I am scheduled to have my first court hearing (for access to my child) at the end of this month, again the MF and ex have purposely made constant false allegations over the past 12 months in order (I believe) to delay both the child and financial hearings in court and run up my legal costs (mine are >£48k whilst the ex's are c£7k). They both know how to work the system and have involved police, social services, domestic abuse teams, abuse charities, etc, etc and all based on a bunch of lies. I have evidenced how the ex has lied to the courts (one of her personal statements under oath) in order to make herself out to be a victim but no one is interested, social services and Cafcass especially. It just underlies what an awful system we have in place that can be manipulated by individuals with their own agenda. I worry so much about my child but no one listens, and the ex did the exact same (parental alienation) with her previous husband and other child.....just madness and it's the child who suffers. I appear to have gone slightly off topic, but again thank you for your advice.
Take care