Categories
Family Law Law

McKenzie Friend

mckenzie friend

The term McKenzie Friend stems from the landmark case of McKenzie v McKenzie in 1970 (McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 WLR 472 CA), where a husband sought assistance from a non-legally qualified friend to represent him in court during divorce proceedings.

Can a McKenzie Friend Help You in Court? Everything* You Need to Know! – Alan Robertshaw Barrister

The Court of Appeal, in their judgment made in 1970, recognised that litigants, especially those without legal representation, could benefit from such support. Consequently, the role of McKenzie Friends was officially acknowledged, allowing individuals to accompany and assist Litigants in Person (LIP) in court.

In 2005 the Court of Appeal, in the matter of the children of Mr O’Connell, Mr Whelan and Mr Watson, further clarified the role of McKenzie friends.

Article 6 of the ECHR is engaged in any application by a litigant in person for the assistance of a McKenzie friend. Furthermore, in our judgment, two clear propositions stand out from the authorities as they apply to family proceedings.

These are:

(1) that the presumption in favour of the litigant being allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend is a strong one; and

(2) that such a request should not be refused without good reason, even where the proceedings relate to a child and are being heard in private.

[2005] EWCA Civ 759 – LORD JUSTICE THORPE and LORD JUSTICE WALL

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Role and Responsibilities of McKenzie Friends

McKenzie Friends are volunteers, friends, family members, or sometimes paid advisors, who assist litigants in various ways. They are not lawyers, but their involvement can be valuable.

A McKenzie Friend can help litigants by providing emotional support, taking notes during proceedings, offering practical advice, and helping with case preparation.

However, it is essential to note that McKenzie Friends cannot address the court directly or act as legal representatives.

Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts)

In July 2010, the role of McKenzie Friends was formalised through the issuance of Practice Guidance by the then Master of the Rolls and the President of the Family Division.

mckenzie-friends-practice-guidance-july-2010Download

The guidance aims to ensure a consistent and fair approach across the civil and family courts when dealing with McKenzie Friends. This Practice Guidance is essential in establishing the parameters and responsibilities of McKenzie Friends in court proceedings.

Guidance from the President’s Office- McKenzie Friends

A guidance document was published by the then President of the Family Division in 2005.

pfd-guidance-mckenzie-friendsDownload

The Courts and Tribunal Judiciary list both guidance documents on their McKenzie Friend webpage.

Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends

A consultation paper entitled Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends was published by the Lord Chief Justice in February 2016.

mf-consultation-paper-feb2016-1Download

A Consultation Response Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends was published by the Lord Chief Justice in February 2019

MF-Consultation-LCJ-Response-Final-Feb-2019Download

Notice of McKenzie Friend

Here is a an example Notice of McKenzie friend which should be completed and handed to the usher before the hearing starts. If you are attending a remote hearing, then you should email the court before the start of the hearing.

notice_of_mckenzie_friendDownload

There is no legal requirement to share this form with the other party (Family or Civil Proceedings).

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any communication in which any representation is made to the court on a matter of substance or procedure but does not apply to communications that are purely routine, uncontentious and administrative.

FAMILY PROCEDURE RULE 5.7 – PART 5: FORMS, START OF PROCEEDINGS AND COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT

This practice direction supplements Part 5 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010

1. Rule 5.7(1) FPR 2010 makes provision in relation to the requirement to disclose and, if in writing, to copy any communication with the court to the other parties or their representatives. Exceptions to the requirement are specified in rule 5.7(2), (3) and (7) FPR 2010. This practice direction supplements rule 5.7(7) FPR 2010.

FAMILY PRACTICE DIRECTION 5C – COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT

Court Refusal of the Request for Assistance from a McKenzie Friend

The purpose of allowing a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend is to further the interests of justice by achieving a level playing field and ensuring a fair hearing.

We endorse the proposition that the presumption in favour of allowing a litigant in person the assistance of a McKenzie friend is very strong, and that such a request should only be refused for compelling reasons.

Furthermore, should a judge identify such reasons, (s)he must explain them carefully and fully to both the litigant in person and the would-be McKenzie friend.

[2005] EWCA Civ 759 – LORD JUSTICE THORPE and LORD JUSTICE WALL

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friends Rights of Audience, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 9th June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent