When There’s No QLR at Your Non-Molestation Fact-Finding Hearing

Be careful if your QLR hasn’t been allocated for your cross-examination questions. The judge or magistrates should not do it for you. This raises serious risks to fairness and independence — they are there to decide, not to act as your advocate. If you find out on the morning of your hearing that no Qualified Legal Representative (QLR) has been appointed, stay calm and make sure the record shows you raised it. You have rights under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the Family Procedure Rules to insist on a fair process.If you’re reading this after experiencing that kind of unfairness, you likely have at least one good ground to appeal. You can contact me to arrange a consultation.

You may also find this helpful: What to do when Family Court orders are ignored or breached

If you have time, read the full judgment of Re Z (Prohibition on Cross-Examination: No QLR) [2024] EWFC 22, delivered by Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division. It’s an essential judgment explaining what courts must do when a QLR cannot be found. The President warns that cases should not drift, that courts should not simply take over questioning, and that fairness must lead case-management.

---

Step-by-Step: What to Do in Court When There’s No QLR

1. Raise it immediately. Tell the court there is no QLR present or allocated. Ask directly: “What steps have been taken to locate or appoint a QLR?” Under Re Z §22, if diligent searches failed, ask the court to list the case back within a short period (around 28 days) rather than proceeding unfairly.

2. Invite the bench to follow the Re Z “menu” (§23):

   • (a) Adjourn to continue searching for a QLR;

   • (b) Adjourn to let you instruct your own advocate at your own expense;

   • (c) Reconsider whether oral evidence or a fact-find is actually needed;

   • (d) Explore other safe, fair alternatives (for example, written questions);

   • (e) Only then, as a last resort, should the court itself ask questions.Remember: “It does not follow that, if no QLR is available, the court must conduct the questioning itself.”

3. Quote the rule. PD3AB §5.3 states: “A satisfactory alternative means to cross-examination in person does not include the court itself conducting the cross-examination on behalf of a party.” If an alternative is used, ask the court to record it — and its reasons — in the order (§5.4).

4. Ask for fairness safeguards. If questioning must proceed today, request a short Ground Rules Hearing, and ask to submit your questions in writing. Re Z §§28–29 calls this judicial task “burdensome, unnatural and tricky” — the bench must stay neutral and avoid “entering the arena.”

5. Check neutrality and make a note. If the clerk or magistrates start conducting your cross-examination, calmly note what happens and whether safeguards were used. This record may be vital for any appeal.

6. If fairness can’t be secured today, ask for a short adjournment. Seek directions to continue the QLR search, to relist once one is found, and for both sides to prepare written questions in the meantime.

---

Key Authorities

• Re Z [2024] EWFC 22 (President) — the roadmap when no QLR is available.

• FPR PD3AB §§5.3–5.4 — the rule that the court itself cannot act as a QLR substitute; any alternative must be explained on the record.

• Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23 — judges must remain aloof from the fray; heavy judicial questioning risks unfairness.

• K and L (Children: Fairness of Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 686 — when a judge effectively took over cross-examination, the hearing was ruled unfair.

• PS v BP [2018] EWHC 1987 (Fam) — Hayden J’s guidance: use ground rules and written questions; do not dilute a party’s case.

  
  

If your hearing goes ahead without a QLR and the bench or clerk begin asking your questions for you, note it carefully. You may have strong grounds to appeal on procedural unfairness.

By William Slivinsky, W-S Paralegal ServicesProfessional guidance and paralegal services for litigants in person.