Family Law Hub

Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166

Judgment, published: 13/02/2001

Items referring to this

  • Application by the mother, which was opposed by the child's birth father, for permission to permanently locate with the child to the USA. The application was granted. Judgment, 02/12/2016, free
  • Mother was ordered to bring the child back to Kent from Northern Ireland so that the father, whom she alleged had abused their daughter, could have contact. Judgment, 21/03/2017, free
  • Judgment, 15/10/2012, free
  • Father sought to challenge an order permitting the mother of his two children to re-locate from England and Wales in order to take up permanent residence with her new husband in Abu Dhabi. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • Father's application to have direct contact with the child and mother's application to remove the child permanently from the UK. Judgment, 28/07/2017, free
  • Each parent sought primary care of the child pursuant to a child arrangements order under s.8 Children Act 1989. In addition, the mother sought permission, pursuant to s.13 Children Act 1989, to remove the child permanently from this jurisdiction to Israel. Judgment, 09/12/2015, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2013, free
  • Father's appeal against an order which allowed the mother to permanently relocate to Germany with their daughter. The appeal was allowed: the judge's reliance on the Payne v Payne criteria led her away from carrying out the necessary overall welfare analysis that was needed. Judgment, 06/08/2015, free
  • Judgment, 29/10/2012, free
  • Case note, 17/03/2011, members only
  • Mother's appeal against an order refusing her to relocate to New York with the 2 children (one of which by the date of this judgment was 16 and the 'no order' principle, that the court should not have been making or continuing orders about young persons over 16 other than in exceptional circumstances, applied). The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 18/12/2015, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2013, free
  • In a tweet: Unsuccessful appeal against a leave to remove order. In brief: The father (“F”) sought to appeal a leave to remove order in proceedings where the mother (“M”) had been able to establish that he had acted in an angry, violent or otherwise inappropriate manner towards the child. The trial judge’s approach could not be criticised. It had been welfare-based, full weight had been given to the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with F and F’s proposals had not been ignored. Judgment, 05/10/2016, free
  • Judgment, 13/11/2012, free
  • Father's appeal against an order granting permission for the respondent mother to relocate to Moscow with the two children. The issues central to the appeal were: (i) whether the judge attributed too great a weight to the mother's relationship with her present husband (the step-father) at the expense of focusing upon the children's relationship with their father and other welfare issues and (ii) whether he failed sufficiently to analyse the evidence in the case, in particular evidence directed to establishing the mother's motivation in seeking permission to relocate. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 01/11/2016, free
  • Application for leave to remove child to Tanzania. Application approved. Judgment, 17/04/2014, free
  • Mother's application to remove the child permanently to Australia was refused. Judgment, 10/07/2015, free
  • Application by mother for permission permanently to relocate the child to Sweden and consequential adjustments to contact. Mostyn J allows the application and also comments on Payne v Payne. Judgment, 16/12/2014, free
  • A relocation case which looks closely at the issue of motivation. The mother (“M”) had been refused permission to leave the country with the couple’s two children to relocate permanently to Germany, with the first instance judge finding that M’s motivation in relocating was to interfere in the father’s (“F”) relationship with the children. On appeal, the first instance judge was found to have misdirected herself on the issue of motivation as the evidence did not support such a conclusion being made. The decision was set aside and the case remitted. Judgment, 04/07/2014, free
  • Judgment, 09/06/2013, free
  • Application by mother, opposed by the father, for permission to remove child to Angola permanently. Application granted but subject to conditions. Judgment, 17/06/2015, free
  • Father's appeal against a decision to allow the mother to re-locate the children permanently to Brazil. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 27/05/2014, free
  • The Court of Appeal has recently provided guidance about the principles that should be applied to applications for internal relocation in the case of Re C (Internal relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305. Charlotte Trace of 29 Bedford Row summarises the main points. News, 14/01/2016, free
  • The father's consent to the children moving to Kiev with their mother was not unreasonably withheld and an order that the children continue living in London and having contact with the father was made. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • Application by M for permission to relocate with the child to her birth place in Moscow. Application granted. Judgment, 23/01/2015, free
  • Judgment, 27/02/2013, free
  • Judgment, 02/02/2012, free

Published: 13/02/2001

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item