- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Patterson & Anor v Rathfriland Farmers Co-Operative Society Ltd (Ruling: McKenzie Friend Application)
Factual and Procedural Background
Two separate proceedings were initiated by Company B and Company A against the Appellants, who are brothers and sheep dealers. Company B claimed an indebtedness of £144,292.96 arising from sales of sheep, securing a default judgment on 26 June 2013. The Appellants made three unsuccessful applications to set aside this judgment, culminating in a dismissed appeal by the High Court on 7 November 2024. Similarly, Company A claimed £79,039.38 with a default judgment dated 4 March 2013, following an analogous litigation path and outcome. The Appellants are appealing both cases before this court.
At the initial case management stage, the court was informed of an application on behalf of the second appellant for assistance from a McKenzie Friend. The court directed that an application be made, which prompted the filing of an Interlocutory Notice of Motion by an individual identified as the moving party seeking rights of audience to act and conduct litigation fully on behalf of the second appellant.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should grant the second appellant the facility of assistance from a McKenzie Friend, including rights of audience and conduct of litigation, in light of the appellant’s medical condition, previous legal representation issues, and conduct of prior proceedings.
- The proper application and compliance with the Practice Note No 03/2012 (as amended) governing McKenzie Friends, including the requirements for application form completion and adherence to the Code of Conduct.
- Whether the individual seeking to act as McKenzie Friend is a fit and proper person to be granted such status.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The second appellant is unable to attend court personally due to medical grounds, including a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer and other medical conditions.
- The individual seeking to act as McKenzie Friend claims to have previously been granted rights of audience and to have comprehensively presented the case at first instance.
- The second appellant has been unable to secure legal representation due to alleged serious fraud by unidentified legal professionals, creating reluctance within the legal community to represent him.
- The second appellant requires assistance to fairly pursue the appeal, as without representation he would face insurmountable difficulties.
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 WLR 472 | Established the right of a litigant to have a friend assist in court by prompting, taking notes, and quietly giving advice, but not addressing the court without express permission. | Used to define the foundational principle and limitations of a McKenzie Friend’s role. |
| R v Bow Street County Court, ex parte Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807 | Set the test for whether fairness and interests of justice require McKenzie Friend assistance; emphasized reasons must be given if refused and that McKenzie Friends have no independent right. | Applied to assess the appropriateness of granting McKenzie Friend status and the court’s discretion in this matter. |
| Re G (Litigants in Person) [2003] 2 FLR 963; Re O’Connell and Others [2005] 3 WLR 1191; Re H [2002] 1 FLR 39 | Endorsed a strong presumption in favour of permitting a McKenzie Friend to assist unrepresented litigants. | Referenced to underline the presumption in favour of assistance but balanced against compliance with procedural requirements and fitness of the proposed McKenzie Friend. |
| Davis v NI Carriers [1979] NI 19 | Emphasized that court rules and practice notes are to be observed strictly. | Invoked to reinforce the necessity of compliance with the Practice Note governing McKenzie Friends. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the application for McKenzie Friend assistance against the requirements set out in Practice Note No 03/2012 as amended in June 2024, including the mandatory completion of a detailed application form and adherence to a Code of Conduct. The application before the court was found to be deficient in multiple respects: the form was incomplete, the required undertaking was absent, and essential information such as remuneration details and prior applications was missing.
The court scrutinized the claims regarding the second appellant’s medical condition, noting some medical documentation of prostate cancer and other ailments but found assertions of recent surgery and incapacity to attend court to be unsubstantiated. The court also rejected the claim that the individual seeking McKenzie Friend status had previously been granted rights of audience, citing the first instance judge’s explicit statement that no such rights were conferred and that any permission to address the court was exceptional and not precedent-setting.
The conduct of the proposed McKenzie Friend before the court was deemed inappropriate, including attempts to address the court without authorization and interruptions during proceedings. The court concluded that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be granted McKenzie Friend status.
The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules and the Practice Note, rejecting any wholesale disregard of these requirements. It highlighted that while the law does not require the impossible, any inability to provide required information must be clearly stated with explanation, which was not done here.
Holding and Implications
The court REFUSED the application for McKenzie Friend assistance on behalf of the second appellant. The refusal was based on the defective nature of the application, non-compliance with the Practice Note, lack of supporting evidence, and the unsuitability of the proposed McKenzie Friend.
This decision directly affects the parties by denying the second appellant the requested assistance from the proposed individual but does not preclude a future application proposing a different person in this role. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling. The court will adjourn the substantive appeal listing to allow for such a possibility.
Alert