Confirmation review (upgrade from MPhil to PhD) chair can ask a lot of questions Recently a friend o mine has her update meeting and there were two examiners and a chair.  Chair has asked much more questions than the examiners and he put her in a hard situation and eventually the examiners decided to fail her based on the chair comments. 

Does really a chair there to ask questions or just modareta the meeting? My friend wants to  make an objection to their decision mainly because of the chair approach and role.

Does it make sense?
The point is: Who asks the questions really makes no difference if your friend doesn't know the answers. 

You seem to make the inference that the process was unfair because the wrong person asked the questions. But that's the wrong attitude. The process would have been unfair if your friend had been well prepared, had known the answers, and was rejected nonetheless.

Let's assume the chair had only taken the role of the moderator. Then there are two outcomes: (i) The other members had asked more questions and would also have found out that your friend did not know the answers; in that case, they would probably have come to the same conclusion. (ii) The other members had not asked questions, it would not have been as apparent that your friend did not know the answers, they may have admitted your friend to the PhD program, and she would struggled a lot because she is not well prepared.