English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The past two years have provided fertile ground for judicial consideration of habitual residence as a factor connecting a person to a specific legal jurisdiction. Since September 2013, the connecting factor has been considered twice by the Court of Justice of the European Union1 and four times by the Supreme Court.2 These judgments were followed by a plethora of decisions from the lower courts, particularly the family division of the High Court, in which the question of habitual residence has been considered in myriad factual circumstances. The principal focus of this analysis is the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Scottish case of R, Petitioner,3 but in order fully to understand the context in which this decision was made it is necessary first to consider the development of the law in these earlier judgments, particularly that of A v A

The Continuing Refinement of Habitual Residence: R, Petitioner