“i) An appeal court should not interfere with the trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless it issatisfied that he was plainly wrong. ii) The adverb "plainly" does not refer to the degree of confidence felt by the appeal court that itwould not have reached the same conclusion as the trial judge. It does not matter, with whateverdegree of certainty, that the appeal court considers that it would have reached a different conclusion.What matters is whether the decision under appeal is one that no reasonable judge could havereached. iii) An appeal court is bound, unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, to assume that thetrial judge has taken the whole of the evidence into his consideration. The mere fact that a judge doesnot mention a specific piece of evidence does not mean that he overlooked it. iv) The validity of the findings of fact made by a trial judge is not aptly tested by considering whetherthe judgment presents a balanced account of the evidence. The trial judge must of course consider allthe material evidence (although it need not all be discussed in his judgment). The weight which he gives to it is however pre-eminently a matter for him. v) An appeal court can therefore set aside a judgment on the basis that the judge failed to give theevidence a balanced consideration only if the judge's conclusion was rationally insupportable. vi) Reasons for judgment will always be capable of having been better expressed. An appeal courtshould not subject a judgment to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed asthough it was a piece of legislation or a contract.”
“It is universally accepted that the starting point in this matter is that whereverpossible, a husband and wife should have contact with each other”