New Precedent on McKenzie Friend Application Requirements and Procedural Compliance

Introduction

The judgment in Patterson & Anor v Rathfriland Farmers Co-Operative Society Ltd (Ruling: McKenzie Friend Application) ([2025] NICA 14) delivered by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on 10 March 2025 establishes important clarifications with respect to the proper completion and adherence to the procedural requirements set out in the Practice Note governing McKenzie Friend applications. In this case, the appellants John Issac Patterson and James Barclay Patterson contest separate proceedings brought by Rathfriland Farmers Co-Operative Society Limited and Markethill Livestock and Farm Sales Limited, respectively. The key issue addressed in the judgment is whether Edward Ward’s application—submitted on behalf of the second appellant, James Barclay Patterson—to be recognized as a McKenzie Friend, satisfies the necessary evidentiary and formal requirements in view of the detailed guidelines laid out in the relevant Practice Note.

The dispute revolves around the manner in which Mr. Ward sought to obtain a facility permitting him to provide assistance that might extend to a right of audience, an issue which requires careful balancing of access to justice with adherence to established procedural norms.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s decision focused squarely on the application made by Mr. Edward Ward. In summary, the court held that:

The application was fundamentally defective as it failed to comply with the requirements of the Practice Note issued by the Lord Chief Justice. Specifically, the required Application Form, complete with all necessary supporting evidence – including an executed undertaking – was not properly completed.
The unsupported assertions presented by Mr. Ward regarding the appellant’s exclusion from first instance hearings, his alleged competent representation at trial, and claims concerning the appellant’s inability to secure legal representation or attend due to health issues, were deemed unsubstantiated and self-serving.
Mr. Ward’s conduct in court during the case management review was found to be inappropriate, further undermining the credibility of his application.
Ultimately, the application was refused, and Mr. Ward was determined not to be a fit and proper person to act as the McKenzie Friend or in any related capacity on behalf of the second appellant.

The judgment emphasizes the strict necessity for adherence to procedural guidelines and the exacting requirements prescribed by the Practice Note, reinforcing the principle that court processes must be observed meticulously.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment draws upon several seminal cases that help frame the legal context of McKenzie Friend applications:

McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 WLR 472: This case laid the foundation for the principle that any litigant may be assisted by a “friend” in court provided assistance remains confined to non-advocacy roles, such as note-taking and offering quiet advice. The present judgment references this case to reaffirm that while assistance may be allowed, it does not confer an independent right to act in court.
R v Bow Street County Court, ex parte Pelling [1999] EWCA Civ 2004 / [1999] 1 WLR 1807: The test formulated in this case focuses on whether the fairness of the proceedings necessitates a McKenzie Friend for an unrepresented litigant. This standard of “fairness” and “interests of justice” underpins the court’s inquiry in the present matter.
Re G (Litigants in Person) [2003] EWCA 1055 / [2003] 2 FLR 963 and Re OConnell and Others [2005] EWCA Civ 759/ [2005] 3 WLR 1191: These cases reinforce that any presumption in favor of permitting a McKenzie Friend is robust but must be balanced with compliance with procedural requirements.
Re H [2001] EWCA Civ 1444 / [2002] 1 FLR 39: Cited in support of the strong presumption towards allowing reasonable assistance, this case illustrates the court’s prior approach when it comes to upholding the rights of litigants in person.

These precedents collectively shape the framework that the court applied: the essential test is whether granting McKenzie Friend assistance is necessary in the interests of justice and ensures a fair hearing. However, the authority to grant such assistance is not unbounded and must adhere to formal application procedures.

Legal Reasoning

The legal reasoning underpinning the judgment is multifaceted:

Emphasis on Procedural Compliance: The court’s reasoning primarily centers on the failure of Mr. Ward’s application to meet the clear, specific requirements laid out in the revised Practice Note dated 7 June 2024. The inadequacy in completing the Application Form—and particularly the absence of a completed undertaking—was decisive. The court stressed that these requirements are not merely technical but are central to exercising judicial discretion.
Adherence to Established Precedents: Citing prior cases, the ruling reaffirms that while access to assistance is a well-established principle for unrepresented litigants, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against strict compliance with procedural norms. The court indicated that any deviation without proper justification undermines the fairness of judicial proceedings.
Assessment of the Evidence: The court critically examined the evidentiary support provided for the medical and representation issues raised. The lack of solid evidence for claims concerning recent surgery, exclusion from hearings, or fraud allegations rendered these assertions unpersuasive.
Judicial Discretion and Its Limits: While judicial discretion is a wide-ranging power, especially in matters of ensuring fairness for unrepresented litigants, the discretion to grant rights of audience (or extended assistance) must be exercised according to a fully informed procedural framework.

Impact

The judgment is poised to have several significant implications:

Strict Adherence to Application Protocols: Future McKenzie Friend applications will likely need to meticulously follow the Practice Note’s guidelines. Any attempt to circumvent the formal requirements, even on the grounds of alleged hardship or disability, will be closely scrutinized.
Uniformity in Judicial Discretion: The decision reinforces that while the principle of assisting unrepresented litigants remains compelling, it cannot override established procedural rules. This will help ensure consistency in how courts evaluate such applications.
Deterrence of Unsubstantiated Claims: By rejecting Mr. Ward’s application on grounds of unverified assertions and procedural non-compliance, the judgment discourages similar unverified or self-serving applications in the future.
Enhanced Focus on Evidence: Litigants seeking a McKenzie Friend facility will need to provide comprehensive and concrete evidence to establish their need for such assistance. This will streamline the court’s assessment process and support a more informed exercise of discretion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Some of the complex legal concepts in this judgment include:

McKenzie Friend: This is a lay person who assists a litigant in person by providing support such as taking notes, advising quietly, and assisting with paperwork. However, they do not have an independent right to speak in court unless explicitly granted by the judge in exceptional circumstances.
Practice Note: This is an official guideline issued by the court which details the correct procedures and forms that must be followed for specific applications—in this case, those requesting the assistance of a McKenzie Friend.
Judicial Discretion: The courts have the power to decide on applications based on principles of fairness. However, this discretion is not unlimited and must be exercised within the framework of established guidelines and evidentiary standards.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Patterson & Anor v Rathfriland Farmers Co-Operative Society Ltd judgment sets a significant precedent regarding procedural rigor in McKenzie Friend applications. The decision underscores that any application for such assistance must strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the governing Practice Note. The court’s thorough examination of both substantive claims and procedural defects effectively reinforces the necessity of complying with judicially mandated procedures.

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

Applications for McKenzie Friend assistance must be complete and supported by robust evidence.
Compliance with the Practice Note is not merely a formality but a fundamental requirement that aids the court in exercising its discretion lawfully.
Courts remain committed to ensuring that unrepresented litigants have access to assistance, provided that procedural safeguards are observed.

This judgment, therefore, stands as an authoritative reminder that procedural integrity is paramount in securing fair hearings, and it is likely to influence the stringent application of guidelines in future cases involving McKenzie Friend requests.