Application for allowance as lay advocate — McKenzie friend/lay assistant — representative — standing — inherent power — Care of Children Act 2004 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 163 & 164 — District Court Act 2016, ss 106 & 107 — Family Court Act 1980, s 16 — Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, ss 21, 22, 24, 26 & 27 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 155 & 157 — Child Support Act 1991, ss 89ZE & 238 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 & 15 — Accident Compensation Corporation v Carey [2021] NZHC 748. The parties had been engaged in Care of Children Act proceedings regarding parenting arrangements for their child. The applicant in the proceedings was self-represented, and this application was made by a third party for themselves to be appointed as a lay advocate/representative. The Court found that the Family Courts Rules did not provide a basis for anyone other than parties or lawyers to file an application within proceedings to which they are not a party, and therefore he had no standing to make the application. Further, the responsibilities of the proposed lay advocate/representative role sought was found to go farther than that of a McKenzie friend/lay assistant. A McKenzie friend/lay assistant's role is to make suggestions and offer advice to a party, and is not allowed to address the Court directly or take an active part in proceedings. The role of lay advocate existed only for proceedings under the Oranga Tamariki Act, and there was no basis under the Family Court Rules for the role of representative, therefore rendering the proposed role of lay advocate/representative nonexistent. The application was also made relying on s 27 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (LCA) for jurisdiction. The Court found that this was an erroneous approach as s 27 of the LCA was a protective provision for persons already appointed in a representative role, rather than a provision enabling appointment. There was no jurisdiction found under the LCA. The Judge also questioned whether there was any inherent power of the Family Court to create the role of lay advocate or representative, but found that the Family Court Rules prevented inherent powers from being used in a way that was inconsistent with legislation. Since the role did not exist in the Care of Children Act, the creation of such a role by the Court would be inconsistent with legislation. The application was declined. Judgment Date: 12 March 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *