Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Book Review on Cohabitation: Law, Practice and Precedents (8th Edition)
It is 27 years since Denzil Lush first produced this book, some subsequent editions of which one has had the pleasure of reviewing for Family Law, and which, for some reason, does not figure as much...
Re AC (A Child) [2020] EWFC 90
(Family Court, Peel J, 11 December 2020)Private Law Children – s 8, Children Act 1989 – Inheritance - Jurisdiction Whether court had jurisdiction to authorise the mother to accept the...
Second reading in the House of Lords of the Domestic Abuse Bill
The Domestic Abuse Bill received its second reading in the House of Lords on 5 January 2021. The committee stage, where the bill will be scrutinised line-by-line, does not yet have a confirmed date....
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
How the care system should change - a child’s perspective
The Children’s Commissioner has published a new investigation into how children affected by the care system would like the current system to change ahead of the government’s planned...
View all articles
Authors

LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re G (Leave to Remove) [2007] EWCA Civ 1497

Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Slug : re-g-leave-to-remove-2007-ewca-civ-1497
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 11, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87369

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Arden and Wall LJJ; 11 December 2007)

The father sought permission to appeal the judge's order granting the mother leave to relocate to Germany, arguing that some judges were misapplying Payne v Payne [2001] FLR 1052, in that they were inappropriately prioritising the impact of refusal on the primary carer, and disregarding modern views on the importance of co-parenting.

The Court refused permission to appeal. It was not possible to argue that the decision in Payne v Payne was being widely misunderstood; it was only possible to argue that, in a particular case, the judge had correctly or incorrectly understood and applied the principles. In any event the experience of the Court was that the principles enunciated in Payne were well understood and had been of assistance to trial judges.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from