D (Children), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 50 (09 February 2010)
The trial judge correctly applied the principles in Payne v Payne, made the welfare of the children the paramount consideration, and reached a decision that was plainly open to her on the facts. There was no error of law or compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.
- Citation
- [2010] EWCA Civ 50
- Parties
- Appellant: BD; Respondent: AID
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 09 February 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Child Relocation, Leave to Remove, Shared Residence, Children Act 1989, Welfare Principle, Doctrine of Precedent
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
BD
Appellant
AID
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting permission for the respondent to permanently remove the children from the jurisdiction to Slovakia
- 2 Whether the judge failed to properly apply the welfare principle under section 1 of the Children Act 1989
- 3 Whether the judge was bound to follow Payne v Payne and did so correctly
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge correctly applied the principles in Payne v Payne, made the welfare of the children the paramount consideration, and reached a decision that was plainly open to her on the facts. There was no error of law or compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application for permission to appeal is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment