Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

Re M (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 1059

Sep 29, 2018, 19:32 PM
Private law children – Relocation – Permission to relocate to Moscow – Appeal
The father’s appeal from a decision permitting the mother and children to relocate to Moscow was dismissed.
Slug : re-m-children-2016-ewca-civ-1059
Meta Title : Re M (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 1059
Meta Keywords : Private law children – Relocation – Permission to relocate to Moscow – Appeal
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 9, 2016, 04:48 AM
Article ID : 113331

(Court of Appeal, Underhill, King LJJ, 1 November 2016)

Private law children – Relocation – Permission to relocate to Moscow – Appeal

The father’s appeal from a decision permitting the mother and children to relocate to Moscow was dismissed.

The parents of the two children, now aged 10 and 12, met in Moscow before relocating to the UK. They separated in 2011 and since then they had been engaged in extensive litigation regarding the living arrangements of the children.

The mother sought to move to Moscow with the children due to an offer of employment there and an opportunity to relocate the business she was running with her new husband. Her application was allowed. The husband appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. The judge had referred to earlier case law including the authority of Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 but that did not lead to his judgment being tainted by the previous confusion surrounding that line of authorities. He had specifically referred to the fact that the only determining factor in his decision was the children’s welfare and he had accordingly analysed the factors pertaining to that.

The Court of Appeal applied the criteria set out in Re F (Relocation) [2012] EWCA Civ 1364 and found that the judgment was adequate in terms of enabling the parties to understand why the decision was reached and provided sufficient detail to enable the CA to determine whether it was sustainable.

The judge’s approach to the mother’s reasons for relocating had been beyond reproach. He found correctly that there was no requirement for the mother to demonstrate economic necessity in order to succeed in her application and that to do so would place the type of additional gloss on the test to be applied that had been expressly rejected in K v K (Relocation) (Shared Care Arrangement) [2011] EWCA Civ 793. The judge had been entitled to conclude that the mother should be permitted to pursue career opportunities overseas if that was consistent with the children’s welfare needs which included maintaining their relationship with the father.

Case No: B4/2016/2769

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1059

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 01/11/2016





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


M (Children)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Charles Geekie QC and Perican Tahir (instructed by Sears Tooth, Solicitors) for the Appellant
Deborah Eaton QC and Nicholas Anderson (instructed by Withers LLP) for the Respondent

Hearing date: Wednesday 21 September 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Re M (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 1059.rtf
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Private Law Children
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from