Practice

Litigant in person applying for McKenzie friend to address court - factors for court's consideration in determining applicationIzzo v Philip Ross & Co: ChD (Mr Justice Neuberger):31 July 2001The claimant, a litigant in person, sought the court's permission to have his case presented by a McKenzie friend on the ground that the friend was much better able to argue the case.

Jonathan Mark Phillips (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the defendants.Held, granting permission, that although paragraph 15.12 of the Chancery Guide provided that a Mckenzie friend should only be permitted to address the court in 'exceptional circumstances' insisting that litigants were merely helped rather than represented by a McKenzie friend often led to the proceedings taking twice as long as necessary because of problems with communication; that in these days of human rights consciousness the court would want a good reason before it required a litigant to present his own case inarticulately when there was someone with relevant abilities who was ready to speak for him; that, on the other hand, to permit any person unknown to the court, with no legal training and no professional accreditation to represent the litigant may be unfair to the litigant, to other parties and the court; that the court had to consider any application to be represented by a friend with great care on a case-by-case basis balancing the various competing considerations; that all litigants should be aware that allowing a friend to address the court was an indulgence which the court would not lightly accord; and that, in the circumstances, given his abilities, the friend should be permitted to address the court.