LIGHTS, CAMERA, NO ACTION: THE INTERFACE BETWEEN CONTRACT LAW AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT

for itself the question of proportionality and necessity in care proceedings cases (Re B, at [116]–[127] (Lord Kerr J.S.C.), [204]–[205] (Lady Hale J.S.C.)) should be preferred. In line with this, it would have been better if the Supreme Court had undertaken its own proportionality assessment on the facts of Re H-W and made supervision orders instead of remitting the case for rehearing before a different judge (at [64]). Doing so would avoid delays in settling arrangements for the family involved and uphold the “central principle of the Children Act 1989” that delays are not in the children’s interests (J. Doughty, “Remote Justice – Family Court Hearings during the Pandemic” (2020) 42(3) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 377, 377). At the end of the day, there is no doubt that Re H-W was “a difficult case” (at [28]). Indeed, decisions made for the removal of children into public care have profound effects and should be carefully scrutinised (at [32]). However, the appellate court’s approach should, as far as possible, strike a balance with the avoidance of delays in the interests of the children’s welfare. Whilst the Supreme Court acknowledged that the perspectives of both the majority and the minority of the Court of Appeal were “understandable in family law terms” (at [32]), it ultimately concluded that the proportionality assessment at first instance was flawed (at [62]) but nonetheless declined to undertake its own assessment (at [63]). With the case being remitted for rehearing before a different judge, one can only hope that it will not be “a lengthy process” before arrangements are finally settled for the family involved (at [64]).