Case No. FA-2022-000035

30.FPR 30.12(3) provides that an appeal may be allowed where the decision was wrong or unjust for serious procedural irregularity. 31.The court may conclude a decision is wrong or procedurally unjust due to: i) an error of law; ii) a conclusion on the facts which was not open to the judge on the evidence: Royal Bank of Scotland v Carlyle [2015] UKSC 13, 2015 SC (UKSC) 93. iii) failure to give due weight to a matter of particular relevance, or undue weight given to some irrelevant matter: B-v-B (Residence Orders: Reasons for Decision) [1997] 2 FLR 602. iv) procedural irregularity rendering the decision unjust: Re S-W (Care Proceedings: Case Management Hearing) [2015] 2 FLR 136. v) exercise of a discretion in way which was outside the parameters within which reasonable disagreement is possible: G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] FLR 894. 32.The function of the appellate court is to determine whether the judgment below is sustainable. In Re F (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 546 Munby P summarised the approach as follows: "Like any judgment, the judgment of the Deputy Judge has to be read as a whole, and having regard to its context and structure. The task facing a judge is not to pass an examination, or to prepare a detailed legal or factual analysis of all the evidence and submissions he has heard. Essentially, the judicial task is twofold: to enable the parties to understand why they have won or lost; and to provide sufficient detail and analysis to enable an appellate court to decide whether or not the judgment is sustainable. The judge need not slavishly restate either the facts, the arguments or the law. The task of this court is to decide the appeal applying the principles set out in the classic speech of Lord Hoffmann in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360. I confine myself to one short passage (at 1372): "The exigencies of daily court room life are such that reasons for judgment will always be capable of having been better expressed. This is particularly true of an unreserved judgment such as the judge gave in this case … These reasons should be read on the assumption that, unless he has demonstrated the contrary, the judge knew how he should perform his functions and which matters he should take into account. This is particularly true when the matters in question are so well known as those specified in section 25(2) [of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973]. An appellate court should resist the temptation to subvert the principle that they should not substitute their own discretion for that of the judge by a narrow textual analysis which enables them to claim that he misdirected himself." 33.The appellate court should be slow to interfere with findings of fact - Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 5.