Report comment

Firstly, if they are charging for their services, stop giving these people the air of legitimacy by calling them "McKenzie Friends". They are not. They are simply unqualified people charging to give legal advice and representation (often in circumstances where it is a criminal offence to do so). You wouldn't call an unqualified electrician a "Sparky Friend". You'd call them a cowboy, and film their antics to be put on day time TV.

An unqualified electrician is cheaper than a qualified one. But would you really seriously expect an official government quango to say "oh well if some people can't afford elecricians, they should use unqualified ones instead"?

I, as with Paul Nichols have been against one of these outfits.

We start a claim for unpaid debt of £300,000. Unqualified rep issues application notice to the Salford Bulk Centre seeking the claim to be transferred to Kingston Upon Thames. (even though this happen automatically). When it gets transferred to the "Preferred Court" (which is the consequence of making an application), which was not Kingston, he issues another application seeking to rescind the administrative order transferring it to the preferred court on the grounds that it was made without a hearing.

It gets transferred to Kingston. I kick up a fuss at all the pissing about and costs I (and my clients) have wasted, all to enrich an unqualified cowboy. The DJ tells me to basically get over it.

He then issues an application for security for costs, on the basis that a letter I had sent had a typo when referring to the Claimant's address, which meant that the claimant's address must have been mis-stated on the claim form. He then finds out my client has a property in Bulgaria, and uses this as a ground for seeking security.

He then issues an application to strike out the witness statement filed by the Claimant in response to his application for security for costs on the grounds that it referred to correspondence, and one of those items of correspondence had reference to an email, and that email was marked without prejudice save as to costs.

Each application seeks payment of "costs" measure in five figure sums (despite the fact that "costs" payable to a McKenzie friend are not recoverable in law either inter partes or from their own client).

We then, having spent literally thousands of pounds in fighting all this nonsense, win.

Each defendant then goes bankrupt. (Not a problem for us in this case, as we can go after somebody else for the money now we have established liability).

I have no doubt that this sort of nonsence is repeated up and down the country. But for some reason, DJs seem to take this "oh well poor Mr Blogs can't afford a proper lawyer, so we'll let him use his little McKenzie" line.