Case No. EWFC-48

v Piglowski [1999] 2 FLR 763 concerned an appeal against the court’s exercise of discretion in matrimonial finance proceedings, much of Lord Hoffman’s description of the general approach to appeals is expressly applicable to fact-finding cases: “In G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647, 651-652, this in the speech of Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, approved the following statement of principle by Asquith LJ in Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 343, 345, which concerned an order for maintenance for a divorced wife: ‘It is, of course, not enough for the wife to establish that this court might, have made a different order. We are here concerned with a judicial discretion, and it is of the essence of such a discretion that on the same evidence two different minds might reach widely different decisions without either being appealable. It is only where the decision exceeds the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible, and is, in fact, plainly wrong, that an appellate body is entitled to interfere.’ This passage has been cited and approved many times but some of its implications need to be explained. First, the appellate court must bear in mind the advantage which the first instance judge had in seeing the parties and the other witnesses. This is well understood on questions of credibility. But it goes further than that. It applies also to the judge’s evaluation of those facts. If I may quote what I said in Biogen Inc V Medeva Ltd [1997] RPC1: ‘The need for appellate caution in reversing the trial judge’s evaluation of the facts is based upon much more solid grounds than professional courtesy. It is because specific findings of fact, are inherently an incomplete statement of the impression which was made upon him by the primary evidence. His expressed findings are always surrounded by a penumbra of imprecision as to emphasis, relative weight, minor qualification… of which time and language do not permit exact expression, but which may play an important part in the judge’s overall evaluation’ The second point follows from the first. The exigencies of daily court room life are such that reasons for judgement will always be capable of having been better expressed. This is particularly true of an unreserved judgement such as the judge gave in this case but also of a reserved judgement based upon notes, such as was given by the District Judge. 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.’(76)In hearing and determining the present appeals we have endeavoured to apply the well-established understanding and approach described in Piglowska and elsewhere. Full allowance is to be afforded to the trial judge who has heard the evidence and been exposed to the parties and the detail of each case over an extended period.”29.An appellate court should also be cautious not to strain to find error where there is none, particularly where an appeal is based on a failure to reference a relevant authority or to refer to a particular matter. Applying Piglowska in