Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust

Ravenscroft v Canal & River Trust

Given Mr Ravenscroft's near illiteracy, lack of resources, and the technical complexity of the case, it is appropriate to permit him the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, including advocacy, to ensure fairness and efficiency. Mr Moore is permitted to act as McKenzie Friend and advocate, but this permission is exceptional, not open-ended, and may be withdrawn if abused. The CRT's attempt to rely on without prejudice communications is rejected as there is no general exception to the exclusionary rule for interlocutory hearings.

Parties
Claimant: Leigh Ravenscroft; Defendant: Canal & River Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (permission for Mc Kenzie Friend to Act as Advocate)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Mc Kenzie Friend, Right of Audience, Litigant in Person, Civil Litigation Conduct
Civil Procedure Mc Kenzie Friend Right of Audience Litigant in Person Civil Litigation Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leigh Ravenscroft

Claimant

Canal & River Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (permission for Mc Kenzie Friend to Act as Advocate)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Nigel Moore should be permitted to act as McKenzie Friend and advocate for Mr Ravenscroft
  2. 2 Whether the involvement of Mr Moore would prejudice the fair conduct of the litigation
  3. 3 Whether without prejudice communications can be relied upon in interlocutory applications

Ratio Decidendi

Given Mr Ravenscroft's near illiteracy, lack of resources, and the technical complexity of the case, it is appropriate to permit him the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, including advocacy, to ensure fairness and efficiency. Mr Moore is permitted to act as McKenzie Friend and advocate, but this permission is exceptional, not open-ended, and may be withdrawn if abused. The CRT's attempt to rely on without prejudice communications is rejected as there is no general exception to the exclusionary rule for interlocutory hearings.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Mr Moore is permitted to act as Mr Ravenscroft’s McKenzie Friend and advocate, subject to the court’s ongoing discretion to withdraw permission if abused.
  • Costs of the application to be costs in the case.