Tag Archive for: court procedure

You are here: / / court procedure

Court procedure refers to the formal rules and steps that govern how cases are started, managed, and decided within the court system. This includes filing requirements, time limits, case management directions, evidence rules, and the sequencing of hearings and applications.

Content under this tag focuses on how procedure operates in practice and why non-compliance often determines outcomes regardless of the merits of a case. It addresses common procedural errors made by litigants in person, the court’s discretion in managing cases, and the importance of accuracy, timeliness, and proportionality in engaging with the court.

Posts

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The High Court has just drawn a firm line around who is actually allowed to run a court case—and it’s a line many people have been crossing without realising. In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the court made it clear that only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation, and that supervision is not enough. For litigants in person, this is not just a technical legal point—it goes directly to how your case is handled, how it is perceived by the court, and whether your position is open to challenge.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law High Court legal proceedings and litigation documents
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can legally conduct litigation.
  • Even well-meaning support can cross the line if someone starts running your case.
  • You must remain in control of your case at all times.
  • Getting this wrong can expose your case to challenge or criticism.
  • Structured, compliant support can strengthen your position significantly.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case

There has been a significant shift in how the courts are approaching who is actually allowed to run a case.

The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has clarified something that, until now, many people in the legal world had quietly blurred:

Only certain people are legally allowed to conduct litigation — and supervision is not enough.

For litigants in person, this matters more than you might realise.

—

What Happened in Mazur?

The case arose from a situation where work on a legal matter had been carried out by someone who was not an authorised solicitor or exempt person, but who was working within a legal environment.

The argument was that because this individual was supervised, their actions were acceptable.

The High Court disagreed.

The judgment made it clear that:

  • “Conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can carry it out
  • Supervision by a solicitor does not make an unauthorised person compliant

This was not a new rule — but it is now being applied much more strictly.

—

What Does “Conduct of Litigation” Actually Mean?

This is the critical question.

It does not just mean standing up in court. It includes:

  • Making decisions about how the case is run
  • Sending correspondence on behalf of a party
  • Filing documents
  • Taking responsibility for procedural steps

In simple terms:

If someone else is effectively running your case — they may be conducting litigation.

—

Why This Matters for Litigants in Person

Many litigants in person rely on support. That support can be incredibly valuable — and in many cases, essential.

But there is now a much sharper line between:

  • Support (which is allowed), and
  • Conduct (which is restricted)

If that line is crossed, it can lead to:

  • Challenges from the other side
  • Increased scrutiny from the court
  • Questions about how the case has been handled

This is not about creating fear — it is about understanding how to stay on solid ground.

—

The Difference Between Support and Running the Case

A properly structured support model looks like this:

  • You make the decisions
  • You send the emails
  • You sign and file the documents
  • You speak for yourself in court

Support can include:

  • Drafting documents for you
  • Helping you prepare your case
  • Advising you on strategy
  • Assisting you in court as a McKenzie Friend

The key distinction is control.

You must remain in control of your case at all times.

—

What This Means in Practice

If you are receiving support, you should always be able to say:

  • “I reviewed and approved this document”
  • “I chose to send this”
  • “These are my instructions”

That clarity protects you.

It also strengthens your credibility in court.

—

A Shift in the Legal Landscape

This decision reflects a wider shift.

The courts are becoming more alert to:

  • Who is actually running a case
  • Whether the proper boundaries are being respected
  • How unregulated support is being used

At the same time, the reality remains:

Access to justice increasingly depends on litigants in person having the right support.

The answer is not less support.

It is better-structured support.

—

Final Thoughts

Mazur does not remove your ability to get help.

What it does is make one thing very clear:

There is a right way to do this — and a wrong way.

If your case is structured properly, support can be a powerful advantage.

If it is not, it can become a vulnerability.

Understanding that distinction is now essential.

—

Need Support With Your Case?

If you are navigating proceedings as a litigant in person and want structured, strategic support that keeps your case clear, compliant and strong, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

A mother and father in a family court setting, supported by a McKenzie Friend, with a judge in the background during a private law children case.JSH LAW LTD

McKenzie Friend Support in Private Law Children Cases

/0 Comments/in , /by

What parents are not told — and how procedural support can change the course of a case

When parents enter private law proceedings alone

Private law children cases are among the most emotionally charged proceedings in the family court. Parents come to court not as abstract legal actors, but as mothers and fathers fighting to remain present in their children’s lives.

Since the reduction of legal aid, increasing numbers of parents navigate these proceedings without representation. They do so while facing allegations, safeguarding concerns, and complex procedural expectations — often against a represented party.

In this context, McKenzie Friend support has become both more visible and more misunderstood.

This article explains what McKenzie Friend support properly is, how it operates in private law children cases, where it adds real value, and why it can be a crucial stabilising force for litigants in person.

What is a private law children case?

Private law children cases concern disputes between individuals — usually parents — about arrangements for a child. They commonly involve applications relating to:

  • child arrangements (where a child lives and spends time)
  • parental responsibility
  • specific issues (education, medical treatment, travel)
  • prohibited steps orders
  • enforcement or variation of existing orders

Unlike public law cases, the state is not seeking intervention. However, safeguarding agencies such as Cafcass and local authorities may become involved if concerns are raised.

For litigants in person, this distinction is often poorly understood — yet procedurally critical.

Why private law cases are particularly difficult for litigants in person

Parents in private law proceedings face a unique combination of pressures:

  • high emotional stakes
  • ongoing relationships with the other party
  • allegations that may be disputed but deeply damaging
  • unfamiliar procedural frameworks
  • limited opportunity to correct early errors

Unlike criminal or civil litigation, family court hearings are less structured in appearance — but no less demanding in substance. Judges still expect clarity, relevance, proportionality, and procedural compliance.

Parents often enter court believing that “telling their story” is enough. It rarely is.

What a McKenzie Friend is — and is not

A McKenzie Friend is not a solicitor, barrister, or advocate as of right. Their role is non-reserved and supportive.

Properly understood, a McKenzie Friend may assist a litigant in person by:

  • providing moral support
  • helping with paperwork and organisation
  • taking notes during hearings
  • quietly prompting issues or questions
  • assisting with understanding court procedure

They do not have an automatic right to speak on a client’s behalf, conduct litigation, or give legal advice. Any further involvement is subject to the court’s permission.

This distinction matters — both ethically and practically.

Why McKenzie Friend support is often misunderstood

There remains a perception that McKenzie Friends are either unnecessary or disruptive. This perception usually arises from poor experiences, not from the concept itself.

When support is unstructured, adversarial, or oversteps boundaries, it can hinder rather than help. However, where support is disciplined, procedural, and court-respectful, it often improves hearings for everyone involved.

Judges are not opposed to assistance. They are opposed to disorder.

The real value of McKenzie Friend support in private law cases

The most effective support is quiet, focused, and strategic.

1. Helping parents stay on point

Many litigants lose focus under pressure. A McKenzie Friend can help ensure that key issues are not forgotten or drowned out by emotion.

2. Supporting document preparation

Private law cases live or die on written material. Poorly structured statements can undermine otherwise strong positions.

3. Evidence organisation

Chronologies, bundles, and supporting documents must be intelligible to the court. Disorganisation often leads to evidence being overlooked.

4. Managing courtroom pressure

Simply having a calm presence beside them allows many parents to remain composed and articulate.

5. Identifying procedural irregularities

Litigants in person frequently fail to spot procedural unfairness at the time it occurs. Support helps ensure such matters are noted and addressed appropriately.

Allegations and safeguarding: where support is most critical

Private law cases often involve allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, or safeguarding risk. These allegations may be contested, historic, exaggerated, or misunderstood.

For litigants in person, responding effectively is extremely difficult. Emotional rebuttals can entrench concerns rather than dispel them.

Support in this context focuses on:

  • understanding the purpose of safeguarding frameworks
  • responding proportionately and evidentially
  • avoiding language that escalates risk perceptions
  • ensuring procedural fairness is preserved

This is not about minimising concerns. It is about ensuring they are handled correctly.

The importance of early support

By the time many parents seek assistance, damage has already been done:

  • unfocused initial statements
  • missed opportunities to challenge directions
  • narratives established without rebuttal
  • inappropriate concessions made under pressure

Early support does not guarantee outcomes, but it often prevents avoidable harm. It allows parents to enter proceedings with a clearer understanding of what lies ahead and how to engage productively.

Respecting the court’s discretion

A fundamental principle of effective McKenzie Friend support is respect for the court.

Permission is requested, not assumed. Boundaries are observed. The judge’s authority is acknowledged at all times.

Where further assistance is sought — such as addressing the court — this is done transparently and appropriately. There is no entitlement. There is only discretion.

This approach builds credibility rather than resistance.

When McKenzie Friend support may not be appropriate

Support is not suitable in every case. Situations where it may be limited include:

  • where the litigant seeks legal advice beyond scope
  • where conduct becomes adversarial or obstructive
  • where the court determines assistance would not be helpful

Ethical support includes knowing when to step back.

How I support parents in private law children cases

My work with litigants in person is grounded in procedure, preparation, and proportionality.

I support parents by:

  • helping them understand what the court is asking for
  • assisting with the structure and clarity of written material
  • supporting evidence organisation and case chronology
  • preparing parents for hearings so they feel steady and informed
  • attending court as a McKenzie Friend where appropriate and permitted

I do not promise outcomes. I do not inflame disputes. I do not replace legal representation.

I support parents to engage with the process in a way that protects their credibility and their children’s interests.

A message to parents navigating private law proceedings

If you are representing yourself in a private law children case, struggling does not mean you are failing. It means you are dealing with one of the most demanding processes in the legal system without training or support.

Seeking assistance is not an admission of weakness. It is a practical decision.

If you recognise the challenges described in this article, it may be time to ask whether structured support could help you navigate the process more effectively.

Contact Me

If you are a parent involved in a private law children case and representing yourself, support may help you approach the process with greater clarity and confidence.

I offer calm, procedural McKenzie Friend support for litigants in person, subject to the court’s discretion.

You are welcome to get in touch to discuss whether support would be appropriate in your circumstances.

    Regulatory & Editorial Notice
    This article is published for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. McKenzie Friend services are non-reserved and subject to the discretion of the court. Every family case turns on its own facts and procedural context. Where legal advice is required, readers should seek assistance from a suitably qualified legal professional.