Bailiff enforcement......if a vehicle is considered to be 'exempt' should the debtor issue an injunction?

[caledfwlch]

Yes you would think so. It seems to be an area where most of the MF firms operate. I suspect one of the reasons is that most proceedings are based on evidential matters, who did what to whom etc. In depth knowledge of the law is not as important as in other proceedings.

 

It is one of the types of court where you would want the best legal help you can get, even if it means getting into debt though.

 

If you use an MF on, for example, a case where your accused of shoplifting, you risk a criminal record, a fine, maybe even a small sentence at Her Majesty's Butlins, not great, but not necessarily going to doom your life and haunt you every single day till you die.

 

A family court case though, could see your kids being removed, and never being allowed to see them again. The Family Courts are legendary in the secrecy, and how dubious many judgements are - in the way that Magistrates often "speak bailiff" as we say on here, the Family Courts "Speak Social Worker" and I believe will often take the word of a Social Worker over actual evidence.

 

I believe it is one of the reasons we had that Fathers for Justice carrying out public spectacles in their campaigns.

 

I don;t understand why Family Courts are so secretive - it is standard for all courts that a child's name is redacted, with serious consequences for anyone who breaches it - look at the people who named and shamed the killers of Jamie Bulger in their new identities once released.

 

If necessary expand the law to include the parents, if it is feared that even knowing the parents name will identify the child.

[Peterbard]

Perhaps so, but as far as the law is concerned, one of the most severe sanctions is to deprive someone of their liberty to free movement, this doesnt happen in family courts, perhaps there should be more checks and balances before MFs are allowed to address the court in these situations as there are in others.

[mikeymack2002]

A readable article is this regarding McKenzie friends, see here http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23208%3Ajoint-guidelines-issued-for-lawyers-dealing-with-unrepresented-people&catid=56&Itemid=24

 

 

It looks like they are due for a review regarding MF's "McKenzie Friends (noting that the Judicial Executive Board is expected to consult this year on revised guidance to judges on McKenzie Friends);"

[mikeymack2002]

Perhaps so, but as far as the law is concerned, one of the most severe sanctions is to deprive someone of their liberty to free movement, this doesnt happen in family courts, perhaps there should be more checks and balances before MFs are allowed to address the court in these situations as there are in others.

 

 

 

You may want to have a read here I hope you find this interesting reading! Please read from para 17. Onwards

http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/family/news_and_comment/re-baggaley-2015-ewhc-1496-fam#Judgment

 

 

This case shows that MF's do get into the Family Division. Judgment dated 22/05/2015. This subject of MF is also covered by the Legal Services Act 2007 see attachment Schedule 2 (Reserved legal activities) read from page 128 of the attachment..

 

 

Then you will want to read Schedule 3

Edited June 13, 2015 by mikeymack2002
Added PDF file