header-logo header-logo

Relocation: where are we now?

29 September 2011 / Clare Renton
Issue: 7483 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Clare Renton reports on a sea change in international relocation cases

The decision of the Court of Appeal in MK v CK [2011] EWCA Civ 793, [2011] All ER (D) 67 (Jul) has further eroded what was regarded by practitioners as principle in relocation cases. In effect the likely distress to the mother from refusal of permission to relocate over other aspects of the welfare checklist is no longer elevated. What was established in Payne v Payne as principle is now mere guidance (see [2001] EWCA Civ 166, [2001] All ER (D) 142 (Feb)).

Case background

In MK a Canadian mother of children aged four and two wished to return home to Canada after the breakdown of her marriage. The father had care of the children five days in a 14-day cycle or 35.7% of the time. The CAFCASS report recognised that the mother felt isolated and lonely in England but recommended on balance that the application should be refused: the damage to the children arising from the inevitable reduction

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll