header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2017 / Victoria Rylatt , Kim Beatson
Issue: 7740 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Moving along

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Kim Beatson & Victoria Brown provide an update on leave to remove
  • The recent case regarding external relocation, M v F [2016] EWHC 3194 (Fam), confirmed that the children’s welfare was the paramount consideration and that the factors considered in Payne were “merely a checklist of factors which will or may need to be weighed in the balance”.
  • In Re R (a child) (domestic abduction) [2016] EWCA Civ 1016, [2016] the court rejected the submission that the approach taken in international abduction cases should be adopted in domestic abduction cases.

Recent cases have rejected the idea that Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166, [2001] All ER (D) 142 (Feb) 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 valuative analysis” taking all factors relevant to relocation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll