Re L (Internal Relocation: Shared Residence Order) [2009] EWCA Civ 20, [2009] 1 FLR 1157

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

This paper draws on parts of my doctoral thesis, which is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (Grant No. 135597), whose support I gratefully acknowledge. I am indebted to Frances Judd QC (who acted for the father in Re L) for useful discussions about the case, to Mavis Maclean who gave feedback on an early draft of this paper, and to the anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments. The views expressed, and any errors, are the author's alone.

Notes

1. Four further Court of Appeal decisions and two High Court cases were discussed by Wall LJ, which make up virtually all the reported cases on internal relocation in England and Wales. When compared with the approach taken in other jurisdictions, the very fact that the number of reported internal relocation cases can be counted on two hands is quite remarkable. In Australia, for example, there were 49 reported internal relocation cases between July 2006 and April 2008 alone (although many were first instance decisions): Parkinson 2008a, p. 37.

2. Many other jurisdictions also impose conditions on relocation, whether international or internal, far more readily than do the English courts (George 2009, Judd and George 2010).

3. The courts consider that such an arrangement can still be called ‘shared residence’ (Re F (Shared Residence Order) [2003] 2 FLR 397, CA), but the reality will be very different.