Watson & Watson

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Lindenmayer considered an application for the appointment of a next friend in proceedings between Watson & Watson. The core of the dispute concerned the suitability of the proposed next friend, who was also involved in separate proceedings under section 118 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider the distinction between the role of a next friend and that of a "McKenzie friend," drawing upon established authorities such as *McKenzie v McKenzie*, *Collier v Hicks*, *KT v KJ & TH*, and *Randall v Randall*. Secondly, the court had to decide whether it could take judicial notice of an order made in unrelated proceedings between different parties, referencing *Mullen v Hackney London Borough Council*. A further key issue was whether the existence of an order against the proposed next friend under section 118 of the *Family Law Act 1975* in other proceedings was a relevant factor in determining their application to act as a next friend, with reference to *MG v MG* and *KT v KJ & TH*.

Justice Lindenmayer reasoned that the role of a next friend is distinct from that of a McKenzie friend, with the former having a more formal and responsible position in litigation. The court affirmed its power to take judicial notice of orders made in other proceedings, provided they are relevant to the matter at hand. Crucially, the court held that an order made against a proposed next friend under section 118 of the *Family Law Act 1975* in separate proceedings was a highly relevant consideration when assessing their suitability to act as a next friend, as it could impact their capacity to fulfil that role effectively and impartially. The court ultimately made orders regarding the appointment of a next friend.