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...
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....
LEAVE TO REMOVE: Re G (Leave to Remove)  EWCA Civ 1497
Sep 29, 2018, 17:12 PM
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
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  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.