Leave to remove: no longer the carer’s prerogative, ask Kim Beatson & Shelley Cumbers
It used to be widely believed in legal and other circles that a primary carer (usually the mother) who sought leave to remove her children permanently from the jurisdiction would succeed providing her plans were coherent and sensible.
Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 is still classed as the leading authority on relocation cases and involved the Court of Appeal reviewing a long line of authority going back more than 30 years to the case of Poel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469, [1970] 3 All ER 659. Prior to Payne the guiding principle was based upon a presumption in favour of granting a reasonable and properly thought out application. Payne considered this presumption and established a new procedure for relocation cases.
In Payne, the father was British and the mother was a New Zealand citizen. She applied for leave to remove their four-year-old daughter to New Zealand and at first instance HH Judge Langan allowed
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
