Practice

The present proceedings concerned issues arising out the father’s status as a litigant in person. The Family Court held that, where a party was unrepresented and “unable to examine or cross-examine a witness effectively,” the court had a duty to assist that party, under s 31G(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Where the court was satisfied that it was not “appropriate” for the judge to put questions to an alleged victim, the court had to arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to put those questions. Further, the court might direct that the costs of such a representative be borne by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.