In this case, having regard to: (i) the origin
of Ofsted's
duty of fairness; (ii) the
general purpose
of the JAR together with its procedural arrangements; and (iii) the unique circumstances and timescale in which the JAR had been directed, the Court
of Appeal found that Shoesmith's appeal against Ofsted should be dismissed.
Hale LJ dissented and expressed concern regarding a
general enforceability
of pre-nuptial agreements and that the law should «not introduce a presumption or starting point in favour
of holding the parties to it: the guiding principle should be
fairness in the light
of the actual and foreseeable circumstances at the time when the court comes to make its order» and stated that «modern marriage still possesses an irreducible minimum, which includes a couple's mutual
duty to support one another and their children».