All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The English law on international relocation, with the leading case of Payne v Payne, has been the subject of much debate in recent years. In a number of recent cases, including the two addressed in this note, the Court of Appeal has engaged with aspects of that debate. This note considers three particular questions raised by the decisions in Re W and K v K, namely the role of precedent in family law cases, the significance of shared care for relocation disputes, and the use of research evidence in reviewing the law. With the exception of cases involving equal or near-equal shared care, the message coming from the Court of Appeal is clear: Payne remains good law, and the guidance contained in it should be followed when seeking the welfare solution to an international relocation dispute.
Order your copy today and get the Autumn Supplement