Kim Beatson provides a round-up of leave to remove cases
Mr Justice Holman described international relocation cases as the “hardest of dilemmas” in the case of S v Z (Leave to Remove) [2012] EWHC 846 (fam), [2012] 2 FLR 581. These cases are difficult and painful for all concerned but travel between countries is an important part of everyday life and some would say that unrestricted movement from country to country is fundamental to our concept of freedom.
Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166, [2001] Fam 473 is still the leading authority on relocation cases. Prior to Payne the guiding principle was based upon a presumption in favour of granting a reasonable and properly thought out application. Payne set out a new procedure for relocation cases and Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss stressed that “there is no presumption in favour of the applicant, but reasonable proposals made by the applicant parent, the refusal of which would have adverse consequences upon the stability of the new family and therefore an adverse effect upon the welfare of the child, continue to be a factor of great weight”.
In
