Kim Beatson & Angelina Milon provide an update on leave to remove cases
In the decade or so since Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166, [2001] All ER (D) 142 (Feb), the case law in this area has moved on with several eminent judges keen to leave their own imprint in this often tragic area of law.
Recent cases have rejected the idea that Payne sets out any presumptions in deciding relocation cases. They have emphasised that the only real principle to be taken from Payne is that the welfare of the child is paramount, whether it is statutorily required or not. These cases have focused the jurisprudence on the welfare of the child and the need to carry out a “holistic evaluative analysis” taking all factors relevant to relocation into account. K v K (Children permanent removal from jurisdiction) [2011] EWCA Civ 793, [2011] All ER (D) 67 (Jul) and Re F (Relocation) [2012] EWCA Civ 1364, [2012] All ER (D) 261 (Oct), contain the modern law on external relocation and are pointedly gender-neutral.
K v K
In the case of K v
